2002 P Cr (PLP)
ROSHAN ALI SHAH‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Zia Parvez, JJ |
| Parties | ROSHAN ALI SHAH‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Zia Parvez, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 P Cr (PLP) (ROSHAN ALI SHAH‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 426‑‑‑Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.48(1) ‑‑Suspension of sentence pending appeal‑‑‑Sentence for offence allegedly committed by accused was three years plus fine of Rs.5,000‑‑‑Appeal was not likely to be disposed of within one year‑‑‑State Counsel had no objection if accused was released on bail‑‑‑Sentence was suspended and accused was released on bail. Nisar Ahmed G. Abro for Applicant. Altaf Hussain Surahio for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Learned counsel submits that it, is apparent from the judgment itself that the appellant/accused was not chance to engage a counsel of his choice which has gravely prejudiced him. On this ground alone, learned counsel says that the appellant should be admitted to bail Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio Counsel is also of the same view. We have heard both the learned counsel and are of the view that per the judgment itself it is clear that the accused was appearing in person however it is not clear whether the accused was given a chance to engage counsel by the learned trial Court. Under these circumstances, we would order that the R&Ps be summoned before my orders are passed at this stage.
2. This is an application whereby it has been prayed that as the sentence is a short one viz. three years plus fine of Rs.5,000 it may be suspended on the ground that the appeal is not likely to be disposed of within one year. Learned State Counsel has no objection to this prayer and the release of the appellant on bail. Since the period of sentence is a short one we would suspend the same and order the release of appellant on bail subject to his furnishing a sumely in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (on hundred thousand) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this Court. Order accordingly. H.B.T./R‑66/K Application allowed.