1986 PLP 134 (SCMR)
ATTA MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 134 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Actg. C. J. Nasim Hasan Shah and S.A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | ATTA MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 134 (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 1986 PLP 134 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Actg. C. J. Nasim Hasan Shah and S.A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 134 (SCMR) (ATTA MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shamim Abbas Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record (Absent) for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 8th October, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 24‑4‑1985, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 1985). ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302‑‑Bail‑‑Bail, refused to petitioner by High Court in exercise of its judicial discretion‑ Interference declined by Supreme Court. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302‑‑Bail‑‑Bail, refused to petitioner by High Court in exercise of its judicial discretion‑ Interference declined by Supreme Court. Shamim Abbas Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record (Absent) for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 8th October, 1985. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, ACTG. C.J.‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 31‑8‑1985, dismissing his bail application in a case under section 302 P. P. C .
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order. After giving our anxious thought to the matter we do not consider it a fit case for interference in the exercise of its judicial discretion by the High Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. M.Y.H. Petition dismissed.