P L D 1982 Lahore 809 (PLP)
SARWAR‑Petitioner' Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1982 Lahore 809 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Abaid Ullah Khan, J |
| Parties | SARWAR‑Petitioner' Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1982 Lahore 809 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1982 Lahore 809 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Abaid Ullah Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1982 Lahore 809 (PLP) (SARWAR‑Petitioner' Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Sabir for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ S. 497 (2)‑Grant of bail, principle governing of‑Not expected amount of sentence but sentence actually provided for offence, held, matters for determining whether or not offence falls within prohibited clause‑Offence under S. 304, Part I, P. P. C. being punishable with imprisonment for life and under Part II with maximum sentence of 10 years case, held further, would fall within prohibited clause‑Bail declined, in circumstances. Shamas Mahmood for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The learned counsel for the petitioner, without conceding, has argued that at worst the petitioner's action could be assumed to constitute an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. He has contended that as ultimately the punishment awarded to the petitioner is expected to be less than ten years his case is not covered by the prohibited clause of section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code and as such he is entitled to be released on bail. It is not the expected amount of sentence, but the sentence which is actually provided for the offence which matters for determining whether or not the offence fall within the prohibited clause. The offence under Part I of section 304 is A punishable with imprisonment for life and an offence under Part II fetches the maximum sentence of ten years. Therefore, it clearly falls within the pro hibited clause. Accordingly the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. His bail petition is rejected. ‑
2. However, as the petitioner is a young man of 20 years of age and has been in detention for more than eight months, it is desirable that the case in hand whose, challan has reached the Court of Session, Jhang, should be decided by an early date. The learned Sessions Judge or the learned Addi tional Sessions Judge, Jhang, seized with the trial of the petitioner's case will dispose if of within four months. s. G. D. Petition dismissed.