1986 P Cr (PLP)
SARDAR ALI Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Javid Iqbal, C J |
| Parties | SARDAR ALI Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Javid Iqbal, C J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (SARDAR ALI Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhuchhar for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 21st January, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑No allegation of Zina against accused‑ Accused involved mainly for assisting or abetting offence‑‑Accused was allowed bail in circumstances. Sardar Ali v. The State 1985 P Cr. L J 2878 ref. Akhtar Shabbir, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. Sh. Munir Hussain for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑No allegation of Zina against accused‑ Accused involved mainly for assisting or abetting offence‑‑Accused was allowed bail in circumstances. Sardar Ali v. The State 1985 P Cr. L J 2878 ref. Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhuchhar for Petitioner. Akhtar Shabbir, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. Sh. Munir Hussain for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 21st January, 1986. In continuation of my orders, dated 14‑12‑1985 and 22‑12‑1985 learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Sardar Ali v. The State 1985 P Cr. L J 2878 in which it was held that the case of the accused against whom there was no allegation of Zina was distinguishable from the other and, therefore, he could be allowed bail. In that case the allegation of Zina was against the son, whereas the co‑accused was father. In the present case learned counsel submits that the allegation of Zina is against younger brother whereas the petitioner is the elder brother. Learned counsel also relies on Criminal Miscellaneous 2165/B of 1981 decided by Justice Muhammad Munir Khan on 2‑9‑1981 in which it was held that if there was no allegation of Zina against three accused in that case, they were allowed bail. Learned counsel states that so far as the present petitioner, is concerned, there is no allegation of Zina as against him although he has been involved in this case mainly for the reason that he had assisted or abetted the offence. In the light of the above authorities since there is no allegation of Zina as against the petitioner. I admit him to bail subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs.10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. /Duty Magistrate Okara. S.A. Bail granted.