| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 1142 2020 SLD 1142 2020 PCRLJ 984 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Bail Application No. S-583 of 2019, decided on 17th January, 2020.
ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, JUSTICE
Noor Muhammad Memon for Applicants. Khalil Ahmed Maitlo, DPG for the State.
Criminal Bail Application No. S-583 of 2019, decided on 17th January, 2020.
ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, JUSTICE
Noor Muhammad Memon for Applicants. Khalil Ahmed Maitlo, DPG for the State.
MUHAMMAD AYOOB AND ANOTHERS
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 269, 272, 273 & 337-J---Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life, adulteration of food or drink intended for sale, sale for noxious food or drink, causing hurt by means of poison---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Further inquiry---Recovery of 18 bags containing 900 packets of Gutka/betel nuts injurious to health---Complainant on spy information arrested the accused persons and recovered the alleged Gutka from the car---Police had ample time to arrange the private persons to associate as witnesses in the recovery proceedings but failed---Applicability of S. 337-J, P.P.C. was yet to be determined by the Trial Court after recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses---Section 337-J, P.P.C. provided punishment for a term which might extend to ten years---Word "may" provided discretion to the court in punishing the accused found guilty after complete trial---Keeping in view the above punishment provided in S. 337-J, P.P.C. the offence as alleged against the accused persons did not fall within the ambit of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.---While deciding the bail application the lesser punishment provided in the law was to be considered---Accused persons were arrested by the police and later on they were granted bail by Judicial Magistrate and on furnishing surety they were released---Record did not reflect that such order of the Magistrate was challenged by the prosecution by filing cancellation application and there was no evidence that the custody of accused persons was required to the investigation officer after their release---Only the accused persons who on insertion of S. 337-J, P.P.C. in the challan felt an apprehension of their arrest and approached the Court of Sessions Judge for bail before arrest which was declined---Trial of the case was nearing to conclusion as in the cases of recovery only complainant, mashir and investigation officer was required to be examined---Declining pre-arrest bail and sending accused to the jail, in circumstances, was not justifiable---While deciding bail plea, the material was to be assessed tentatively, deeper…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492