1987 P Cr (PLP)
MANZOOR MUHAMMAD‑ ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, CJ |
| Parties | MANZOOR MUHAMMAD‑ ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 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 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, CJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 P Cr (PLP) (MANZOOR MUHAMMAD‑ ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khaqan Babar for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 5th November, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Three persons allegedly on instigation of accused receiving money from different persons for sending them abroad ‑Such other persons not arrested‑ ‑Challan complete‑‑Sanction to prosecute awaited‑‑Sanction usually taking long time‑‑Keeping accused behind bars for indefinite period, held, would not be in the interest of justice‑‑Bail granted in circumstances. Farooq Bedar, Addl. A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Farooq Bedar, Addl. A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 5th November, 1986. The allegation against the petitioner is that on his instigation three other persons' namely, Abbas Ali, Ahmad Ali and Ghulam Hussain took a sum of Rs.1,72,000 from different persons on the pretext of sending them abroad. Those three persons have not been arrested so far.
2. Hassan Naqvi Inspector F.I.A. is present with record. According to his information they have gone to Saudi Arabia. Efforts are being made to repatriate them to Pakistan. Petitioner remained on bail for 3‑1/2 months. His bail was not confirmed on the ground that he may not abscond.
3. Learned counsel submitted that if the petitioner wanted to run away, he could do so when he was on bail.
4. It is contended that the reason given by the learned Judge for not confirming the bail is not in accordance with law.
5. Inspector submitted that the challan has been completed. Only sanction is awaited. He further submitted that usually it takes very long time to get sanction from the Interior Ministry and in the present case it is not known when the sanction is likely to be given.
6. I do not think it is in the interest of justice to keep the petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period. He is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Special Judge (Central), Lahore. S.A. /M‑101/L Bail granted.