2005 PLP 110 (YLR)
FATEH MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 110 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J |
| Parties | FATEH MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 110 (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 2005 PLP 110 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 110 (YLR) (FATEH MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahl for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 426
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324/337-A (i) (iii)/337-F(i)/148/149
Accused admittedly was aged about 85 years-- Sentence awarded to accused was short and out of same accused had undergone 3-1/2 months sentence
No likelihood was of early hearing of appeal of accused in near future
Application filed by accused for suspension of his sentence was accepted and was admitted to bail. Sh. Khurshid Iqbal for the State.
Judgment & Decree
further S. I. for two months Under section 337- To one year R. I. A(i), P. P. C. and to pay Daman Rs.5,000 Under section 337 To two years R. I. A(iii): P.P.C. and to pay Arsh as 10% of the Diyat. Under section 3 To six months S.I F(i), P.P.C. and to pay Dar Rs.5,000
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the sentence is short and that he has suffered about 3-1/2 months sentence out of the same; that he is aged about 85 years as is reflected from the impugned judgment; and that there is no likelihood of earlier hearing of his appeal in the near future.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition.
5. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the copy of .the impugned judgment.
6. It has been mentioned in the impugned judgment that the applicant is aged about 85 years.
7. His sentence is also short. He out of the same statedly had undergone at least 3-1/2 months sentence. There is no likelihood of early hearing of his appeal in the near future.
8. I, therefore, find that case for suspension of his sentence has been made out. The application, therefore, is accepted and his sentence is suspended and he pending disposal of the appeal is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./F-54/L Sentence suspended.