Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ براہ راست قابل اعتماد وکیل تک رسائی
ابھی وکیل سے بات کرنی ہے؟

صرف 1000 روپے میں 10 وکلاء تک کی براہِ راست رابطہ تفصیلات حاصل کریں اور کال یا واٹس ایپ کے ذریعے موزوں قانونی ماہر سے رابطہ کر کے اپنا معاملہ پورے اعتماد کے ساتھ آگے بڑھائیں۔

☎ فون اور واٹس ایپ تک رسائی ⚖ تصدیق شدہ وکلاء ڈائریکٹری 🔒 محفوظ ادائیگی
⚡ صرف 1000 روپے میں 10 وکلاء سے رابطہ کریں
ایک بار ادائیگی کریں۔ اپنی قانونی ضرورت کے مطابق وکلاء کے رابطہ نمبرز کھولیں۔

HASHIM RAZA versus STATE


Criminal Code of Conduct (CRPC) Property against Section 497 Crimes (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), Section 17 (3) Guarantee, no explanation regarding delay in grant of FIR after 10 days which The identity of some of the accused was not paraded after registering in the complainant's case as the anonymity is required

1987 P Cr. L J 1609

[Karachi]

Before Allah Dino G. Memon, J

Syed HASHIM RAZA‑‑Petitioner

versus

THE STATE‑ Respondent

Bail Application No. 163 of 1987, decided on 22nd March, 1987.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑

‑‑S. 497‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(3)‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑F.I.R. lodged after 10 days of occurrence‑‑No explanation for delay‑‑Complainant coming to know names of some of accused after registration of case‑‑Identification parade not held‑‑Case, held, required further inquiry‑ Bail granted in circumstances.

K.M. Nadeem for Petitioner.

Sarfraz Ahmed, A.A.‑ G. for the State.

ORDER

The applicant is facing trial before the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (West) under section 17(3) of the Enforcement of Hudood Ordnance, 1979. The contention of Mr. K.M. Nadeem, Advocate is that the F.I.R. is belated by 10 days and there is no ostensible explanation for the same. He has further contended that the name of the applicant does not transpire in the F.I.R. and the revolver in question has been foisted on him, even no identification test has been held although the F.I.R. shows that the applicant was not known to the complainant but he came to know about the name of the applicant from some other person. Mr. S. Sarfraz Ahmed. A.A.‑G. for the State has no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant in view of the above circumstances.

I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and have also gone through the police papers. Admittedly the incident took place on 3‑11‑1986 while the F.I.R. was lodged on 13‑11‑1986. The F.I.R. shows that the complainant came to know about the names of some of the accused later on, and under such circumstances it was necessary to hold the identification test of the accused. I, therefore, feel that it is a case which requires further enquiry within the meaning of section 497 (2), Cr.P.C.

I, therefore, direct that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.20,000 with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

S.A./H‑8/K Bail granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
online advocate from Rashidabad lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP وکلاء ڈائریکٹری

پاکستان کا لیگل ٹیکنالوجی پلیٹ فارم اور تصدیق شدہ وکلاء ڈائریکٹری جو کلائنٹس، وکلاء، لاء فرمز اور بار ایسوسی ایشنز کو آپس میں جوڑتا ہے۔

رابطہ کریں

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. جملہ حقوق محفوظ ہیں۔