1988 PLP 728 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIOUE‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 728 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIOUE‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 728 (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 1988 PLP 728 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 728 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIOUE‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Arshad for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.21‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.215‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused released on bail on merits and absenting himself before Trial Court‑‑Non‑bailable warrants issued and accused was sent to jail‑‑Accused in jail for the last about 10 months‑‑Counsel of accused assuring his presence before Trial Court‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Sh. Hamid Mukhtar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
This is an application for grant of bail to Muhammad Siddiq petitioner in case under section 215, P.P.C. and section 21 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979, registered at P.S. Kahna, District Lahore, vide F.I.R. No. 166 of 1986, dated 8‑7‑1986.
2. The petitioner was allowed bail on merit by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 5‑10‑1986. After submission of challan, the petitioner did not appear before the Court and as such non‑bailable warrants for his arrest were issued. He was subsequently produced by the surety in the Court and was sent to judicial lock‑up. The petitioner riled three applications for bail which were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 14‑9‑1987, 20‑10‑1987 and 23‑12‑1987.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assures that the petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the petitioner was allowed bail on merits on 5‑10 -1986 and it was on account of his absence before the trial Court on the date of hearing that non‑bailable warrants of his arrest were issued and he was sent to jail; that he is in jail since 5‑4‑1987 and that the learned counsel for the petitioner jail, has given assurance that the petitioner will remain present before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing. For what has been said above, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner (City), Lahore. SA./M‑585/L Bail allowed.