1986 P Cr (PLP)
KALARANCE alias MUHAMMAD NADEEM‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Munawar Ali Khan, J |
| Parties | KALARANCE alias MUHAMMAD NADEEM‑‑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: Munawar Ali Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (KALARANCE alias MUHAMMAD NADEEM‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10(3)/11‑‑Bail‑‑Delay occurring in trial but not on account of accused as not a single adjournment was sought by him‑‑No material existing on record to indicate that accused was a previous convict, hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal‑‑Bail granted. Sardar Muhammad Ishaq for Applicant. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, A.A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Bail Application No. 212 of 1986, decided on 17th February, 1986. ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10(3)/11‑‑Bail‑‑Delay occurring in trial but not on account of accused as not a single adjournment was sought by him‑‑No material existing on record to indicate that accused was a previous convict, hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal‑‑Bail granted. Sardar Muhammad Ishaq for Applicant. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, A.A.‑G. for the State. The application for bail has been moved on behalf of the applicant Kalarance alias Mohammad Nadeem who has been challaned in the Court under section 10(3)/11, Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The application is based on the ground of delay. The learned counsel has filed copy of the case diary of the lower Court. It reveals that the applicant has been in jail since 6‑2‑1985 and the delay caused in the trial is not on account of the applicant. It is admitted that not a single adjournment has been sought by the accused. There is also no material on the record indicating that the applicant is a previous convict or P hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal. The learned A.A.‑G has therefore, no objection to grant of bail. For above reasons bail is granted to the applicant in the sum of Rs.15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand only) and P.R. of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. M.Y.H. Bail granted.