NASEEM vs State S — 2023 PCrLJ 1385 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

NASEEM VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 395---Dacoity---Bail, grant of---Malice of Police---Benefit of doubt---Further inquiry---Allegation against the petitioner and three other co-accused persons was that they, being armed with pistols, committed theft of three (03) coils from a transformer valuing Rs. 30,000/= and electric wires valuing Rs. 10,000/= from the Government tubewell---Initially, the FIR was registered under S. 382 of the Penal Code, 1860, however, later S. 395 was added during the submission of Challan---Contention of the petitioner/accused was that he was falsely involved in the case because his brother had moved application against the Police Officials---Validity---Record revealed that though the complainant made allegation specifically in the FIR against the accused persons, however, during the investigation the Investigating Officer (I.O.) did not collect any evidence to substantiate the accused's involvement in the offence under S. 395 of the Penal Code, 1860, therefore, the addition of said section solely based on the opinion of the Deputy Public Prosecutor (D.P.P) was a matter that required further inquiry---Accused had alleged the malice against the Police and concerns about the Police implicating his family in false cases were expressed in the application moved by his brother just three days before the accused's involvement in the present case as they had refused to pay the monthly bribes to the Police---Said allegations raised sufficient doubts regarding accused's commission of the offence---Prosecution had to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and even at bail stage, the benefit of doubt could be extended to the accused--- Bail was allowed to the petitioner, in circumstances.

NASEEM vs State S — 2023 PCrLJ 1385 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ