1987 PLP 2253 (MLD)
ABDUL ALEEM and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2253 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Mamoon Kazi, J |
| Parties | ABDUL ALEEM and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2253 (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 1987 PLP 2253 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Mamoon Kazi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 2253 (MLD) (ABDUL ALEEM and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S.364--Bail before arrest--Court below not moved first by accused for fear of their arrest by police at the Court premises--Bail refused--Protective bail however granted to enable accused to approach Court below for bail. Rashid A.Rizvi for Applicants.
Judgment & Decree
THE STATE--Respondent Criminal Bail Application No.878 of 1987, decided on 23rd July, 1987.
S.497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S.364--Bail before arrest--Court below not moved first by accused for fear of their arrest by police at the Court premises--Bail refused--Protective bail however granted to enable accused to approach Court below for bail. Rashid A.Rizvi for Applicants. This is an application for pre-arrest bail filed on behalf of applicants Abdul Aleem and Mumtaz Bano who are apprehending their arrest in connection with a case registered at Police Station Sujawai, District Thatta under section 364 PPC. Although the learned Sessions Court, Thatta has not been moved first but the contention of Mr.Rashid A . Rizvi is that the applicants would be immediately arrested there and subjected to harasment by the police. According to the applicants they were married on 4th July, 1987 and a photocopy of Nikah Nama has' been filed with the bail application as annexure 'B'. Consequently, the contention is that they have been falsely implicated in the case by the complainant since the marriage of the applicants has taken place against the wishes of the complainant and the police is also conniving with the complainant. I would not like to entertain this application since the learned Sessions Court has not been moved first by the applicants for bail before arrest. However, protective bail is granted to the applicants to enable them to appear before the learned Court of Sessions and move their bail applications there. The bail may be furnished in the sum of Rs.25,000 each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. The validity of this order shall automatically expire on 10th August, 1987 and the bail bonds if any furnished on behalf of the applicants shall be deemed to have been cancelled. The order shall also cease to be valid when an application is filed by the applicants before the Sessions Court. M.Y.H./A-141/K Bail refused.