1987 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD INAYAT‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui. J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD INAYAT‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
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 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui. J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD INAYAT‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 498‑‑Grant of bail‑‑Application for reduction of bail amount‑ F.I.R.showing that entire quantity of stones seized was not precious stones but also contained imitation stones and quantity of such stones were not separately shown in F.I.R.‑‑Valuation of stones as shown in the F.I.R. was also arbitrarily high‑‑Amount of bail was reduced to Rs.30,000 from Rs.1,00,000 in the circumstances. K.M. Nadeem for Applicant. Abdul Sattar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Special Criminal Bail No. 28 of 1987, decided on 9th April, 1987. ‑‑S. 498‑‑Grant of bail‑‑Application for reduction of bail amount‑ F.I.R.showing that entire quantity of stones seized was not precious stones but also contained imitation stones and quantity of such stones were not separately shown in F.I.R.‑‑Valuation of stones as shown in the F.I.R. was also arbitrarily high‑‑Amount of bail was reduced to Rs.30,000 from Rs.1,00,000 in the circumstances. K.M. Nadeem for Applicant. Abdul Sattar for the State. The applicant has been granted bail by the learned trial Court in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with P.R. bond in the like amount. The applicant has now applied for reduction of the bail amount. It is contended by the learned counsel that even according to the F.I.R. the entire quantity of stones seized was not precious stones but it also contained imitation stones but the quantity of these stones are not separately shown in the F.I.R. The learned counsel also contend that valuation disclosed in the F.I.R. for these stones is arbitrarily high. Keeping in view of the above circumstances I reduce the amount of bail to Rs.30,000 with one surety and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. M.B.A. /M‑111/K Bail amount reduced.