1986 PLP 1213 (MLD)
MAYO and 2 others‑‑Applicants/Accused Versus THE STATE‑‑Opponent/Complainant
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1213 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zahoorul Haq, J |
| Parties | MAYO and 2 others‑‑Applicants/Accused Versus THE STATE‑‑Opponent/Complainant |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1213 (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 1986 PLP 1213 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Zahoorul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1213 (MLD) (MAYO and 2 others‑‑Applicants/Accused Versus THE STATE‑‑Opponent/Complainant). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497(1), proviso 111‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Bail sought on statutory ground of delay in trial‑‑Bail refused by Trial Court on ground that accused were desparate as they committed murder in a cruel manner‑‑Delay of trial not caused by accused persons‑‑No misconduct or dangerous attitude attributed to accuses during trial or in Jail‑‑Police report about previous conviction and desparate nature of accused in negative‑‑Question of murder by accused in cruel manner was under‑trial and thus could not be used as basis for holding accused desperate and dangerous‑‑Bail granted in circumstances. Shaikh Rehman Bux,.for Applicant/ Accused. Sarfraz Ahmed, A.A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Bail Application No.228 of 1986, decided on 28th April 1986. ‑‑‑S.497(1), proviso 111‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Bail sought on statutory ground of delay in trial‑‑Bail refused by Trial Court on ground that accused were desparate as they committed murder in a cruel manner‑‑Delay of trial not caused by accused persons‑‑No misconduct or dangerous attitude attributed to accuses during trial or in Jail‑‑Police report about previous conviction and desparate nature of accused in negative‑‑Question of murder by accused in cruel manner was under‑trial and thus could not be used as basis for holding accused desperate and dangerous‑‑Bail granted in circumstances. Shaikh Rehman Bux,.for Applicant/ Accused. Sarfraz Ahmed, A.A.‑G. for the State. The present applicants were refused bail by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, on the ground that they were desparate acid dangerous persons as evidenced from their conduct in killing the deceased, who had been first fired at and then dragged into cultivation, where Aziz and Guloo had caused hatchet blows to him. It is an admitted position that there was more than two years delay between time o arrest of the applicants and the bail application of the applicant. The delay in trial had not been caused by the applicants. There was no~ misconduct or dangerous attitude attributed to them during the trial or in jail. Moreover, the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge himself had asked for a police report in respect of the previous conviction and dangerous, desparate and hardened nature of the applicants from P.S. A Rukhan. But the report was in the negative. In these circumstnces it was hardly' open to the IInd Additional Sessions Judge to refuse the bail to the applicants because the question of their killing the decease in a cruel manner was still under‑trial and the same could not ordinarily be used as the basis of the applicants being desparate and dangerous criminal. Consequently, the bail is granted to the applicants on providing two sureties for each of them in the sum of Rs. 20, 000 each with P.B in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.A.K. Bail granted.