1988 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khizar Hayat, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khizar Hayat, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch.Nazir Ahmad for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd), Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3 & 4‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Petitioner, found in possession of 150 grams of heroin, in jail for the last ten months and not a. single witness examined so far‑‑Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances. Aftab Sherazi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No.545/B of 1988, decided on 20th March, 1988 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd), Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3 & 4‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Petitioner, found in possession of 150 grams of heroin, in jail for the last ten months and not a. single witness examined so far‑‑Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances. Ch.Nazir Ahmad for Petitioner. Aftab Sherazi for the State. Muhammad Hussain, petitioner was arrested on 11‑5‑1987 as he was found in possession of 150 grams heroin. He was denied the concession of bail by me on 18‑1‑1988. The instant petition has been repeated on the ground that despite ten months period having gone by not a single prosecution witness has so far been examined. It is a right of the accused to be tried expeditiously. The legislature had to bring amendment in the relevant provision of law, providing that bail must be granted when a trial has not concluded within prescribed, period. Here, the petitioner is in jail for the last ten months and so far not .a single witness has been examined. In the circumstances, the petitioner has a good case for grant of bail. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The petitioner shall be released subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, during pendency of the trial. S.G.D./M‑647/L Bail allowed.