1989 PLP 4786 (MLD)
SULTAN MAHMOOD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4786 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | SULTAN MAHMOOD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4786 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4786 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4786 (MLD) (SULTAN MAHMOOD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.S.Khawaja for Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S.109‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Statutory delay‑‑Trial was not concluded within statutory period‑‑Accused regularly appeared before Court and sought no adjournment‑‑Nothing on record was available to show that accused was hardened, dangerous or desperate criminal‑‑Bail granted in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S.109‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Statutory delay‑‑Trial was not concluded within statutory period‑‑Accused regularly appeared before Court and sought no adjournment‑‑Nothing on record was available to show that accused was hardened, dangerous or desperate criminal‑‑Bail granted in circumstances. A.S.Khawaja for Petitioner Sultan Mahmood petitioner was arrested in a case under Articles 3/4 Prohibition Order (EOH} Ord. 1979 read with section log‑ P.P.C. P. S. Ichhra, Lahore on 12‑12‑1986 on the allegation that four kilos of heroin was recovered from his possession. He was initially tried by judicial Magistrate, Lahore and the trial had almost concluded when the learned Magistrate sent the case to the Court of Sessions for trial where it is to start afresh.
2. Bail is sought on the statutory ground. It is stated that ever since 12‑12 1986 he had been regularly appearing before the Court and did not obtain even a single adjournment. He is said to be a first offender.
3. There is no material on record to show that he is hardened, dangerous or desperate criminal. Since his trial has not come to an end within the statutory period and there is likely hood of further delay in its conclusion. I admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.25,00,000 (twenty five lac) with four sureties to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The Court is directed to see that the sureties are men of means with good credentials preferably belonging to Lahore. SA./S‑539/L Bail granted.