1983 PLP 124 (SCMR)
KHADIM HUSSAIN-' Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 124 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHADIM HUSSAIN-' Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | -- S. 497-Bail-Case of accused petitioner similar to that of his co, Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 124 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: -- S. 497-Bail-Case of accused petitioner similar to that of his co, Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 124 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 124 (SCMR) (KHADIM HUSSAIN-' Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court with Sheikh Sallahuddin, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court with Sheikh Sallahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Assistant Advocate‑General for the State.
- We issued notice to the Advocate‑General who has appeared in response thereto.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court dated, 4-4-1987, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 766 -B-82). accused already released on bail by Sessions Judge-Petitioner, held, also entitled to bail. Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Assistant Advocate-General for the State. Date of bearing : 22nd June, 1982.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Khadim Hussain petitioner was accused along-with some others of offences under section 302/148/149, P. P. C. His co‑accused Ramzan and Rafiq Masih were granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, but the application of petitioner was dismissed on the ground that his bail application had earlier been dismissed by the High Court. The petitioner again filed an application for grant of bail before the High Court which was dismissed on the ground that his earlier bail application had been dismissed. Hence the present petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his case is abso lutely at bar with that of the aforementioned co‑accused who have been allowed bail by the learned Sessions Judge. We issued notice to the Advocate‑General who has appeared in response thereto.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through! the material before us we are inclined to agree with the petitioner's counsel that his case is similar to that of his co‑accused released on bail by the Ses sions Judge. We, therefore, feel that the petitioner is also entitled to bail. The petition is converted into appeal and the petitioner is allowed bail I the sum of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties, each in the like a Mount, to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Faisalabad. Appeal allowed. Bail granted.