1986 PLP 83(2) (SCMR)
SHAUKAT ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 83(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | SHAUKAT ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 83(2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 83(2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 83(2) (SCMR) (SHAUKAT ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Ismail Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M.A. Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ismail Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. M.A. Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court for the State. Date of hearing: 23rd April. 1985. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against tire order of the High Court, dated 16‑‑2 ‑1985, rejecting his bail application. ;
2. We have herd the petitioner's counsel. His application before the High Court was based on the ground that the challan had not yet been submitted against him in any Court. The High Court, however, observed that it appeared that he challan lard been filed and that delay in submitting the same had been caused by the abscondence of the two of the co‑accused of the petitioner.
3. On the last date of hearing we asked the leaned counsel for the State to ascertain as to whether or not challan had been filed. He has today informed us, on instructions from the relevant official that challan has been filed in the Court of Magistrate in Sialkot who has not yet sent it to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot, as one of the co‑accused had absented himself.
4. In this view of the matter we do not consider this a fit case fore interference with the impugned order of the High Court. This petitioner is consequently dismissed. M. Y.H. Leave refused.