Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 3195 = 1981 SLD 3195 = 1981 PCRLJ 882
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Criminal Bail Application No. 856 of 1980, decided on 29thSeptember, 1980.
Presented By: Ghaus Ali Shah, J
M. S. Khattak for Applicant. M. I. Memon, Addl. A-G. for the State.

RUSTAM AND 2 OTHERS----Applicants/Accused

VERSUS

THE STATE-----Respondent

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497 (2)

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S.497 (2)----Bail, grant of-Prosecution relying for its case against applicants on their identification in light of torch and lantern as well as evidence of foot prints test---F. I. R. silent as to description of alleged accused person while applicants arrested six days after alleged occurrence-Held: A case of further inquiry as contemplated by S. 497 (2), Cr. P. C.--Bail allowed, in circumstances.                                                                                                                      ORDER The applicants have been sent up to stand trial under section 459, P. P. C. The allegations against them are that-they on the night between 6th and 7th of July, 1980, were found standing in the house of the com plainant and the applicant, Khan Mohd., out of them was armed with a shot-gun. When the complainant and Rajab Ali challenged them, he fired a gun-shot, which hit the complainant on his right leg. They raised cries but the assailants made their escape good. Zainulabdin lodged such F. I. R. on 7thJuly, 1980 at Police Station Garhi Yasin of District Shikarpur. The police after usual investigation challaned the applicants for the above offence. The application bail was moved before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, who by his order dated 11thAugust, 1980 dismissed it. The learned counsel for the applicants 'contends that the incident is of a dark-night where identification is being claimed on light of a torch and a lantern, The names of the applicants do not appear in the F.I.R. as they were not known to the applicants previously and their descriptions have also not been mentioned in the F. I. R. They were arrested after 6 days of the incident when they have been put to identification test. The other piece of evidence against them is that of footprints' test. Moreover part of firing is attributed to…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register