1988 PLP 240 (SCMR)
MUMTAZ ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 240 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUMTAZ ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 240 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 240 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 240 (SCMR) (MUMTAZ ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Rao M. Yosuf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 29-4-87, in Cr. Misc. No.1096/B/87. --S.497--Bail--No ground made out for grant of bail before Supreme Court--Petitioner's counsel stating that complainant the alleged eye witness, had made a statement after impugned decision of High Court and that scope might be left for the petitioner repeating application for bail--Petitioner, if so advised might file fresh application for bail after complainant's statement was recorded by Trial Court--Remarks in impugned judgment regarding capacity of said eye-witness to see the occurrence and other questions relating to merits should not influence Trial Court or any other Court. Rao M. Yosuf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Heard. No ground has been made out for grant of bail by this Court at this stage. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Learned counsel states that Muhammad Sharif complainant the alleged eye-witness has made a statement after the decision of the High Court impugned in this petition and that the scope may be left for the petitioner repeating the application for bail. If so advised the petitioner may file fresh application for bail after Muhammad Sharif's statement is recorded by the trial Court. It is further observed that the remarks in the impugned judgment regarding the capacity of Sharif P.W. to see the occurrence and other questions relating to the merits, shall not influence the trial Court or any other Court. S . Q . / M-261 / S Petition dismissed.