PCRLJ 1989

1989 P Cr (PLP)

MUHAMMAD FAROOQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 235 of 1988, decided on 6th March, 1989.
Honorable Judges
Allahdino G. Memon, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1989 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members Allahdino G. Memon, J
Parties MUHAMMAD FAROOQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 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 1989 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Allahdino G. Memon, J.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD FAROOQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Attaullah Khan for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497--Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3 & 4- Bail, grant of--Heroin recovered from accused--Accused in custody for more than 1-1/2 years--No progress at all made in trial of accused--Delay not attributed to accused--Bail granted in circumstances. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, AA.-G. for the State.

Judgment & Decree

Exemption allowed. The applicant is facing trial under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979, on the allegation that 17 grams of heroin was recovered from him on 23-6-1986. The applicant had moved an application for bail before the trial Court but the same was rejected. I have heard Mr. Attaullah Khan learned counsel appearing for the applicant, and Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, learned A.A.-G. appearing for the State. Mr. Attaullah Khan learned counsel appearing for the applicant has contended that the applicant has remained in jail for more than one and half years but no progress has been made in the case and not a single witness has been examined. The delay in conclusion of the trial has not been occasioned by any act of omission of the applicant or his counsel. Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi learned A.A.-G. appearing for the State has conceded to the grant of bail to the applicant in view of the above circumstances. I have gone through the certified copy of case diary produced by the learned counsel alongwith the bail application which clearly shows that the applicant has been in custody for more than 1/1-2 (one and half years) and the case has made absolutely no progress. The delay has not been occasioned by any act or omission of the applicant or his counsel. In view of these circumstances the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 25,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. SA./M-779/K Bail granted.