PCRLJ 1983

1983 P Cr (PLP)

MITHAL SHAH‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
Criminal Bail Application No. 481 of 1977, decided on 4th August, 1977.
Honorable Judges
Hamza Khan Qureshi, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1983 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members Hamza Khan Qureshi, J
Parties MITHAL SHAH‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Hamza Khan Qureshi, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 P Cr (PLP) (MITHAL SHAH‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Date of hearing : 4th August. 1977.

Headnotes / Summary

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ ‑‑S. 497 (1), first provisoBailAccused applicant suffering from sinus techycardia with strain and mild hypertension‑State not opposing bail applicationBail granted in circumstances. Muhammad Hayat for Applicant. A. H. Lakho, Addl. A,‑G. for the State.

Judgment & Decree

‑‑S. 497 (1), first provisoBailAccused applicant suffering from sinus techycardia with strain and mild hypertension‑State not opposing bail applicationBail granted in circumstances. Muhammad Hayat for Applicant. A. H. Lakho, Addl. A,‑G. for the State. Date of hearing : 4th August. 1977. He (Addl. A.‑G.) opposes bail on the ground that the word `Sick' used in proviso to section 497, Cr. P. C. is defined as sickness which may be detrimental to life. He undertakes to bring law on the point. He is given time upto 11 O'Clock today as desired by him. 11. 30 a. m. Mr. A. H. Lakho, states that he could not find any ruling of Supreme Court or of any High Court in which the word 'Sick' is defined. He relies on the Supreme Court ruling reported in P L D 1966 S. C. 658 and has no objection to the grant of bail to the accused on the strength of the certificate issued by R. M. O. Chandka Medical College, Larkana, which is countersigned by the Medical Superinten dent Chaudka Medical College, Hospital, Larkana. This certificate shows that the accused is suffering from Sinus techycardia with strain and mild hypertension. The certificate was issued in December, 1976 and repeated on re‑examination of the accused on 13th February, 1977 The R. M. O. confirms the said ailment of the accused in his report dated 7th July, 1977 called by this Court. The Addl. A.‑G. does not contest A certificate of the report but he supports it. In the light of the abovesaid medical certificate and no objection of Addl. A. G. the applicant is granted bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety and P. R. in the like amount to satisfaction of the trial Court. Bail granted.