2009 PLP 1140 (YLR)
ABDUL KARIM — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1140 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah, J |
| Parties | ABDUL KARIM — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1140 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 1140 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1140 (YLR) (ABDUL KARIM — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S 498---Bail, grant of--Failure of accused to attend the court---Issuance of non-bailable warrants---Petitioner/accused who was granted interim bail, having failed to attend the court on one date, his bail application was dismissed and non-bailable warrants were issued to him---Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that absence of accused/petitioner before the court was beyond his control---Validity---Petitioner had undertaken to appear before the Trial Court on each and every date of hearing---State counsel had no objection if the non-bailable warrants issued to the petitioner were suspended and his bail application was restored to its original position---Non- bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were recalled and his bail application was restored to its original position; and the Trial Court was directed to decide his bail application on merits.
Headnotes / Summary
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after having been granted interim bail by the learned Sessions Judge Mithi, the applicant/accused could not attend the Court on one date and submitted application for condonation of his absence. However, the reasons given in the application did not prevail with the learned Sessions Judge who was pleased to not only reject the said application but also dismissed his bail application in non-prosecution and non-bailable warrants were issued. The learned counsel has submitted that the absence of the accused before the trial Court was beyond his control and he has undertaken to appear before the trial Court henceforth on each and every date of hearing. The learned counsel appearing for the State has no objection if the non-bailable warrants issued are suspended and his bail application is restored to its original position. In the circumstances, the present revisions application is allowed. The non-bailable warrants issued against the applicant/accused are recalled and his bail application is resorted to its original position and the learned Sessions Judge is directed to decide his bail application on merits. H.B.T./A-29/K Petition allowed.