SCMR 2007

2007 PLP 1930 (SCMR)

ALLAHDINO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Crl. P.L.A. No.14-K of 2003, decided on 28th April, 2003.
Honorable Judges
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Rana Bhagwandas and Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2007 PLP 1930 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Rana Bhagwandas and Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, JJ
Parties ALLAHDINO — Petitioner 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 2007 PLP 1930 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1930 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Rana Bhagwandas and Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, JJ.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1930 (SCMR) (ALLAHDINO — Petitioner 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

  • Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, Advocate-on-Record/Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
  • Date of hearing: 28th April, 2003.
  • Suleman Habibullah, Additional Advocate-General, Sindh for the State.
  • IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he had instructions not to press this petition because in view of the progress, which has been made in the case before the trial Court, the petitioner contemplates to repeat bail application for his release on bail. However, he sought indulgence of this Court that if such application is moved, that may be disposed of by the trial Court independently without being influenced by the earlier order. Learned Additional Advocate-General has no objection for making such observations.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from order, of High Court, Sindh, Bench at Sukkur dated 13-9-2002 passed in Criminal Bail Application No.444 of 2002).

S. 497

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)

Bail; refusal of

Petition for bail had been dismissed as not pressed, however, on the request of accused it was observed that if he, subject to availability of the fresh grounds, would approach Trial Court for release on bail, said application would be disposed of without being influenced, in any manner, from the earlier order. Suleman Habibullah, Additional Advocate-General, Sindh for the State.

Judgment & Decree

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he had instructions not to press this petition because in view of the progress, which has been made in the case before the trial Court, the petitioner contemplates to repeat bail application for his release on bail. However, he sought indulgence of this Court that if such application is moved, that may be disposed of by the trial Court independently without being influenced by the earlier order. Learned Additional Advocate-General has no objection for making such observations.

2. Petition is dismissed as not pressed. Needless to observe that if the petitioner, subject to availability of the fresh grounds, approaches trial Court for release on bail; such application shall be disposed of without being influenced, in any manner, far the earlier order. N.H.Q./A-62/SC Petition dismissed.