PCRLJ 1986

1986 P (PLP)

SOOBEY KHAN and others Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2 of 1985 in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1983, decided on 25th March, 1985.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Sharif, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1986 P (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Muhammad Sharif, J
Parties SOOBEY KHAN and others Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 P (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 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Sharif, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P (PLP) (SOOBEY KHAN and others Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • M. Sultan Alam for Petitioners.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑S. 426‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860j,e S. 148/307/149‑‑Suspension of sentence pending appeal‑‑Statutory period provided by S. 426, Cr.P.C. having been expired‑‑Accused allowed bail. Zafar Mahmood Anjum for the State.

Judgment & Decree

‑‑S. 426‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860j,e S. 148/307/149‑‑Suspension of sentence pending appeal‑‑Statutory period provided by S. 426, Cr.P.C. having been expired‑‑Accused allowed bail. M. Sultan Alam for Petitioners. Zafar Mahmood Anjum for the State. 0 The petitioners have been convicted under sections 307/149 and 148 of the P.P.C. and have been awarded different terms of sentences each including life imprisonment each. They have petitioned for being released on bail.

2. The statutory period provided under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has expired. Learned counsel for the State has no objection if the petitioners are enlarged on bail. The petitioners are, therefore, enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.60,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Multan till the disposal of this Appeal. S.A. ‑‑‑‑‑ Sentence suspended.