1989 PLP 4784 (MLD)
SHAH MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner. Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4784 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Majid Tiwana, J |
| Parties | SHAH MUHAMMAD‑‑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 4784 (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 4784 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Majid Tiwana, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4784 (MLD) (SHAH MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner. Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Shaukat Ali for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.426‑‑[1‑A] Crl. Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S.304 Part I‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑Two bail applications were rejected on merits previously‑‑Appeal was directed to be fixed for early hearing but yet not fixed‑‑Statutory period of detention had been completed‑‑Sentence suspended and bail was granted in circumstances. M. Saleem Shad, for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Sardar Shaukat Ali for Petitioner. M. Saleem Shad, for the State. This is an application for the suspension of sentence of the appellant, who vide judgment dated 29‑1‑1987 delivered by an Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, was convicted under section 304 Part 1 P.P.C. and sentenced to ten years R.I. for committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder of Umar Hayat. The previous two similar applications of the petitioner were rejected, first by Mr. Justice Mazhar‑ul‑Haq and second by Mr. Justice Shaikh Muhammad Asadullah. Both of them have retired. Those applications were dismissed on merits. This application has been made on the ground of lapse of maximum statutory period of detention of the appellant.
2. The application has been opposed on behalf of the State on the ground that two earlier applications of similar nature were rejected by this Court and if the appellant is very keen; the appeal itself may be fixed and disposed of and in fact an order for its early disposal had already been made on 15‑3‑1988.
3. The two previous bail applications for the suspension of sentence of the petitioner were rejected by the learned Judges who are no more in office now. The perusal of the interim'‑order, dated 15‑3‑1988, indicates that the learned Judge was pleased to direct for the early hearing of this appeal but it has not yet been fixed for final hearing despite that order and obviously it cannot be disposed of during vacations, as it is not an urgent matter. The appellant/petitioner completed maximum statutory period of his detention on 29‑1‑1989 and his appeal is still pending. In view of the provisions of section 426(1‑A) clause (c) Cr.P.C. the petitioner is entitled to release on bail. Therefore, his sentence is suspended and he is granted bail if he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Kasur.
4. Copy dasti, if requested for. S.A./S‑537/L Sentence suspended.