1983 PLP 365 (SCMR)
SANAULLAH AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 365 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SANAULLAH AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 365 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 365 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 365 (SCMR) (SANAULLAH AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Abdus Salim, Advocate Supreme Court - and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing : 24th April, 1.982.
- M. Abdus Salim, Advocate Supreme Court ‑ and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 15-12-1981, passed in Crl. Misc. No. 3270-B/81). --Ss. 497 & 498-Bail-High Court cancelling bail granted to accused-petitioner by Sessions Court-Petitioner's counsel bringing certain subsequent facts to notice of Court-Petition for leave to appeal, however, dismissed with observation that petitioner can file another bail application before High Court on fresh grounds-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3).
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑Sana Ullah and Nazir, petitioners were accused for the offence of abduction of Mst. Ghafooran while Sana Ullah petitioner was also accused of zina with her. Sana Ullah was granted pre‑arrest bail while Nazir was allowed bail after arrest by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide order dated 14‑11‑1981. On an application by Abdur Rahman complainant their bail was cancelled by the High Court vide the impugned order. The accused petitioners now seek Leave to Appeal against the said order.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length we do not consider it proper to interfere with the impugned order. It may, however, be mentioned that the petitioners' counsel brought certain the subsequent facts to, our notice, i.e. statement of Mst. Ghafooran before a Civil Judge in a suit for conjugal rights filed by Sana Ullah against her and that the father of Mst. Ghafooran is persistently refusing to produce he before the Court in a writ of habeas corpus notwithstanding the repeated orders for her production by the High Court. This petition is dismissed with the observation that the petitioners can file another bail application before the High Court on the fresh grounds mentioned above. Petition dismissed