1986 P Cr (PLP)
Syed SHAMSHAD RAZI Applicant Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Haider Ali Pirzada, J |
| Parties | Syed SHAMSHAD RAZI Applicant Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Haider Ali Pirzada, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (Syed SHAMSHAD RAZI Applicant Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 498 & 499‑‑Bail amount, reduction of‑‑Accused's father getting monthly salary of Rs.976 and supporter of 7 members of him family‑ Applicant not in a position to furnish surety of Rs.50,000‑‑Amount of surety reduced to Rs.25,000 in circumstances. Sardar Muhammad Ishaque for Applicant. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi Asstt.A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Sardar Muhammad Ishaque for Applicant. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi Asstt.A.‑G. for the State. This is an application under section 498, Cr.P.C. The applicant has filed this application for reduction of surety amount. My learned brother Mr. Justice Z.C. Valiani enlarged the applicant on bail on 29‑2‑1984 and ordered to furnish surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 with P.R. bond in the like amount. Mr. Sardar Muhammad Ishaq the learned counsel for the applicant has moved this application for reducing the surety on the ground of the crippled financial position of the applicant's father who is working as a put‑overman in T and T at a monthly salary of Rs.976. He is a supporter of 7 members of his family and as such he cannot arrange surety. Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi the learned Assistant Advocate‑General has no objection for reduction of the surety amount. I find that the applicant is not in a position to furnish surety as ordered by my learned brother. He has made out a sufficient cause for furnishing of surety in the sum of Rs.25,000 and the ground advanced appears to me to be reasonable. I am, therefore, of the opinion that lie is not in a position to furnish surety and in the circumstances, I allow the applicant to furnish surety in the sum of Rs.25,000 with one P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge. M.A.K. Petition accepted.