1997 PLP 2691 (MLD)
GHULAM HAIDER — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1997 PLP 2691 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM HAIDER — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 2691 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 2691 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 2691 (MLD) (GHULAM HAIDER — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Ameer Muhammad Joya for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/324/34
Bail had been allowed to accused not on merits but on statutory ground after they had remained in jail as undertrial prisoners for more than two and a half years
No exception could be taken to the bail granting order passed by Trial Court
Petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1285/C/B of 1996, decided on 21st April, 1996.
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/324/34
Bail had been allowed to accused not on merits but on statutory ground after they had remained in jail as undertrial prisoners for more than two and a half years
No exception could be taken to the bail granting order passed by Trial Court
Petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed accordingly. Malik Ameer Muhammad Joya for Petitioner. Ghulam Haider petitioner had got a case registered against the respondents and others with Police Station Mochh, District Mianwah on 29-4-1993 for offences under section 302/324/34, P.P.C. Respondents Nasar Khan and Tahir Khan in pursuance of the case were arrested on 21-6-1993. They applied for bail, which was granted to them on statutory ground on 6-3-1996. Complainant has moved the present application seeking cancellation of the bail allowed to respondents by Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against respondents Muhammad Khan and Nasar Khan is of heinous nature and they should not have been allowed bail. Argued that mostly the respondents were responsible for causing the delay in conclusion of the trial and in such circumstances were not entitled to concession of bail on statutory ground.
3. I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the file, The respondents are named in the F.I.R. and overt act was also ascribed to each of them but bail by the learned trial Court was not allowed on merits; instead .it was allowed on statutory ground. They were allowed bail after they remained m jail as undertrial prisoners for more than 2-1/2 years. Going through the order impugned, I find no exception can be taken. The petition fails, which is, accordingly, dismissed. N.H.Q./G-5/L Petition dismissed.