1987 PLP 1546(2) (SCMR)
AMJAD HUSSAIN ABID‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1546(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | AMJAD HUSSAIN ABID‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1546(2) (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 1987 PLP 1546(2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1546(2) (SCMR) (AMJAD HUSSAIN ABID‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- G.A. Farid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 15th June, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 710/B of 1987, dated 21 March, 1987). ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 377‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Refusal to grant of bail to accused charged under S. 377, P.P.C. by High Court‑‑Order impugned‑‑Not being a fit case for interference in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by High Court, Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSAIN, J.‑‑The petitioner who is a teacher and has been accused for having committed sodomy on one of his students, has filed this petition for leave to appeal against the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 21st March 1987 rejecting his bail application. On going through the impugned order and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we do not consider it to be a fit case for interference in the exercise of its discretionany jurisdiction by the High Court. The petition is therefore dismissed. M.I./A‑68/S Petition dismissed.