1987 PLP 3134 (MLD)
Mst. BHAG BHARI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 3134 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Afrasiab Khan, J |
| Parties | Mst. BHAG BHARI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 3134 (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 1987 PLP 3134 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Afrasiab Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 3134 (MLD) (Mst. BHAG BHARI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Khaliq Khan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 29th September, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 435, 439 & 497--Bail order--Imposition of conditions, whether maintainable--Sessions Judge while granting bail, imposing conditions as to who should submit bail bond--Conditions imposed by Sessions Judge, set aside. Mian Nusrat Ullah, Addl. A. G. for the State. Tassawar Hussain Qureshi for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Nusrat Ullah, Addl. A. G. for the State. Tassawar Hussain Qureshi for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 29th September, 1987. The petitioner, Mst. Bhag Bhari, has moved this revision petition under section 435/439, Cr.P.C. against the order dated 9-7-1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali. It has been prayed by the petitioner in the revision petition that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali on 9-7-1987 may be declared illegal to the extent to which some conditions have been imposed on the bail granted to her.
2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, vide his order dated 9-7-1987 admitted the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000.00 with one surety in the like amount to his satisfaction. However, the condition- imposed in the bail order was that surety bond shall be submitted by the father, brother or uncle of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged this part of the impugned order referred to above.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Mian Mahmood Ali Qasuri and others v. The State (P L D 1963 S C 478) and Abdur Rehman v. The State 1985 S C M R 542 and on the basis of these authorities forcefully submitted that the learned trial Court was not competent to impose conditions while releasing the petitioner on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that this is a fit case in which some conditional order should be passed. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to point out any law under which the passing of this conditional order is justified.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record very minutely. Respectfully following the rule laid down in the abovementioned authorities, the condition impose by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Mianwali vide his order dated 9-7-1987 on the bail of the petitioner is set aside. Resultant the petitioner shall be admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000.00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali. This petition is according allowed. S. A./B-36/L Petition accepted.