1988 P Cr (PLP)
S. NADEEMULLAH SHAH‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Mazhar Ali, J |
| Parties | S. NADEEMULLAH SHAH‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Mazhar Ali, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (S. NADEEMULLAH SHAH‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.I. Memon for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.14‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Applicant was bailed out in all other cases filed against him‑‑Offence allegedly committed by applicant was punishable only with three years' R.I.‑‑Refusal of bail to applicant by Court below on apprehension that if enlarged on bail, he would abscond, held, was not based on any sound principle, but was based only on whimsical approach‑‑Applicant admitted to bail. 1985 P C r L J 2704 ref. S. Sarfraz Ahmed, A.A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Mr. S. Sarfraz Ahmed, A.A.‑G., vehemently opposes the bail application in view of the fact that the applicant was involved in as many as 10 cases as detailed below:‑ (1) Case No. 79/78 under section 279/338 (2) Case No. 91/78 under section 420. (3) Case No. 119/78 under section 224/512. (4) Case No. 24/79 under section 381/512. (5) Case No. PX/76 under section 205/468/471. (6) Case No. 146/79 under section 279/338. (7) Case No. 149/79 under section 420/468. (8) Case No. 110/80 under section 224/512. (9) Case No. 167/78 under section 224/512. (10) Case No. 158/79 under section 332/353/186 The counsel submitted that notwithstanding the fact that it is a case which does not fall within the prohibitory clause yet in appreciation of the fact that the applicant is a habitual offender and is being prosecuted in 10 different cases it is not a fit case wherein he should be admitted to bail. Having heard arguments of the parties representatives I am of the opinion that in view of the fact that the applicant has been bailed out as stated at the bar by the learned counsel in all the cases filed against him and also in appreciation of the fact that the offence allegedly committed by him is punishable only with three years' R.I. there is no reason why should the applicant be denied his right to be enlarged on bail. The learned Sessions Judge seems to be labouring under a misconception that he was involved in other cases of the same nature. His apprehension that the applicant would abscond if he is enlarged on bail is not based on any sound principal but only on whimsical approach. In these circumstances, I am of opinion that the applicant has made out a case to be enlarged on bail. I would, therefore, admit the applicant to bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.20,000 with P.R. in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Magistrate. H.B.T./S‑144/K Bail granted