1990SCMR1403 (PLP)
GHULAM FARID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990SCMR1403 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM FARID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990SCMR1403 (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 1990SCMR1403 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990SCMR1403 (PLP) (GHULAM FARID‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asif Saeed Khan and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 24th January, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 22‑11‑1989 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, in Cr. Misc. No. 1074‑CB of 1989). ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 377‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.785(3)‑‑‑Complainant was a boy of 12 years of age‑‑‑Accused, a relation, took advantage of his age and absence of his father‑‑‑Swabs taken were found to be stained with semen‑‑‑Discretionary jurisdiction exercised by High Court in cancelling bail allowed to accused by Sessions Court thus did not call for any interference‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J: ‑‑Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court by which bail granted to him by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case under section 377, P.P.C. was cancelled.
2. The grounds for grant of bail by the Additional Sessions Judge and now urged were examined by the learned High Court and found to be untenable.
3. The complainant was a boy of 12 years of age and the petitioner, a relation, took advantage of his age and absence of his father. Swabs taken were found to be stained with semen.
4. In the circumstances, discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the High Court calls for no interference. Petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./G‑282/S Petition dismissed.