1987 PLP 3095 (MLD)
Raja LAL KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 3095 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Afrasiab Khan, J |
| Parties | Raja LAL KHAN — 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 3095 (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 3095 (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 3095 (MLD) (Raja LAL KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Zulqarnain for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.394/114--Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17--Bail, grant of--Case against accused registered two and a half years ago but prosecution had not been able to conclude its evidence against him--Accused admitted to bail. Muhammad Anwar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S.497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.394/114--Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17--Bail, grant of--Case against accused registered two and a half years ago but prosecution had not been able to conclude its evidence against him--Accused admitted to bail. Raja Zulqarnain for Petitioner. Muhammad Anwar for the State. The petitioner Raja Lal Khan has moved this petition for bail after arrest under section 497/498, Cr.P.C. in a case registered against him under section 394/114, P.P.C. read with section 17 of the Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VI of 1979 at Police Station Lower Mall, Lahore, vide F.I.R. No. 307/84 dated 6-11-1984. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case against the petitioner was registered in the year 1984 and more than 21 years have passed, but so far the evidence has not been concluded before the trial Court. The learned counsel forcefully submitted that under law he is entitled to be released on bail. It is maintained that under similar circumstances and under similar set of allegations the co-accused Riazuddin, Asif Iqbal, Salim Akhtar, Aurangzeb and Qamar Bakht Gillani have been bailed out by the learned Sessions Judge as well as by the learned Area Magistrate. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to oppose the bail petition so seriously. He has conceded that the case against the petitioner was registered in the year 1984 and so far the prosecution has not been able to conclude its evidence against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the State has suggested that some observation may be made in the order for the expeditious disposal of the case. In the facts and circumstances of We instant case, in the interest of justice the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to -the satisfaction of the trial Court. 3. The trial Court is further directed to conclude the trial o the petitioner within a period of one month positively and the compliance report thereof shall be submitted to the Registrar of this Court. M. Y. H./L-9/L Bail allowed.