1987 PLP 1028 (MLD)
IMDAD ALI alias SAMANDRI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1028 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | IMDAD ALI alias SAMANDRI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1028 (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 1987 PLP 1028 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1028 (MLD) (IMDAD ALI alias SAMANDRI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch.Muhammad Ashraf Azim for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497/498--Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 302/34--Bail--Case against, accused fixed for trial--Grant of bail, held, not proper at such stage. Sardar Nazar Hussain Dogar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ch.Muhammad Ashraf Azim for Petitioner. Sardar Nazar Hussain Dogar for the State. The petitioner alongwith three others stands charged with the murder of Rashid Mahmood deceased, on 13-10-1982 at 12-45 Noon in the area of Kot Khawaja Saeed, Lahore.
2. Bail is urged on the grounds that the petitioner is under arrest for the last 18 months and the trial has not commenced as yet. The next ground is that of alibi. It is stated that the petitioner was present at Faisalabad on the relevant day in connection with a complaint case instituted by him and that his statement was also recorded on the said day.
3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail. According to him the plea of alibi can be adjudged by the trial Court after recording the evidence and further that the trial has been fixed w.e.f. 19-6-1984. Learned counsel states that there is likelihood of further delay in its conclusion.
4. Since the case has been fixed for trial I do not consider it proper to allow bail at this stage. Accordingly I dismiss the application
5. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the case before summer vacation. The petitioner may apply again for bail if the trial is not concluded by the abovementioned period. M. Y. H. Bail refused.