| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 630 2025 SLD 630 = 2025 MLD 291 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Bail Applications Nos. 1186 along with 824 of 2024, decided on 19th August, 2024.
Before Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J
Abdul Rasheed alias Sheeda v. The State 1985 SCMR 1778 distinguished. Muhammad Saddique Gopang for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Application No. 1136 of 2024). Muhammad Umar Panhwar for Applicants (in Criminal Bail Application No. 824 of 2024). Siraj Ali Khan Chandio, Addl. Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State. Abbad-ul-Hasnain for the Complainant.
Criminal Bail Applications Nos. 1186 along with 824 of 2024, decided on 19th August, 2024.
Before Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J
Abdul Rasheed alias Sheeda v. The State 1985 SCMR 1778 distinguished. Muhammad Saddique Gopang for Applicant (in Criminal Bail Application No. 1136 of 2024). Muhammad Umar Panhwar for Applicants (in Criminal Bail Application No. 824 of 2024). Siraj Ali Khan Chandio, Addl. Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State. Abbad-ul-Hasnain for the Complainant.
MUHAMMAD IMRAN and another---Applicants
VERSUS
The STATE---Respondent
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 497(2)
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: XLV,394,397,337F(ii)
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.394, 397 & 337-F(ii)---Person voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery, dacoity with murder, qatl-iamd, dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a decoity, common intention---Post arrest bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused was alleged to have retained stolen property in his possession, however the property in question was not recovered from the accused---Seven cellphones recovered from another person, which were allegedly received by him from the accused, were not the case property of the present case---Neither anything incriminating nor the cellphones allegedly robbed were secured from the accused--Recovered cellphones had no nexus or connectivity with the commission of the present offense---Mere foisting of articles or incriminating evidence is not sufficient to connect an individual with the crime unless specifically shown to have been involved---Prosecution had not recovered cellphones from either side along with SIMs through which it could be deduced that same were used by the accused while making conversation with each other, thus, if contents of investigation to the extent of CDR might be presumed to be true even then it required a lot of evidence which was yet to be adduced by the prosecution at the time of trial and the Trial Court had to determine its veracity---No sufficient evidence was found against the accused to connect him with the crime of retaining stolen property---Post-arrest bail was allowed, in circumstances.Muhammad Ramzan v. Rahib and others PLD 2010 SC 585 1 rel.Date of hearing: 19th August, 2024.ORDERMUHAMMAD SALEEM JESSAR, J.---By this common order, I intend to dispose of these Bail Applications bearing Nos.1186 and 824 of 2024 as both arise out of one crime bearing No.59 of 2024 registered at P.S Surjani Town, Karachi for offences under Sections 394, 396, 302, 412 and 34m P.P.C. Applicant Muhammad Imran was arrested on 14.02.2024; whereas, applicant Ubaid was arrested on 12.02.2024. Interim challan of the case was filed on 13.06.2024 which is still pending for preliminary proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate in…
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