1994 PLP 1319 (MLD)
NASIR ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE through S.H.O. SHAH GHAREEB — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1319 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NASIR ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE through S.H.O. SHAH GHAREEB — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1319 (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 1994 PLP 1319 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1319 (MLD) (NASIR ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE through S.H.O. SHAH GHAREEB — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Abdul Wahid for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324
Bail already having been granted to the accused by the Magistrate, cancellation of the same by the Sessions Court after about a. year was not correct particularly when the witnesses had been summoned at the trial and there was no evidence of the misuse of the concession of bail
Judgment & Decree
The occurrence took place on 7-2-1993 in which Muhammad Akram the son of Mst. Zubaida complainant who lodged the F.I.R., was injured. He received two Chhuris in front of chest and abdomen.
2. In view of the medical report the bail ordinarily should not have been granted very soon after the occurrence but in any case the petitioner was granted bail by the Magistrate on 13-4-1993, his first bail application having been dismissed on 14-3-1993. Application for cancellation of the bail was moved in the Sessions Court and withdrawn from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. Again application for cancellation was moved before the Magistrate who dismissed the same on 13-1-1994. Again the application for cancellation of the bail was moved which was granted by learned Additional Sessions Judge on 2-3-1994.
3. Leaving aside the other considerations the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct that the bail having been granted on 13-4-1993, cancellation on 2-3-1994 i.e. just after about a year was not correct particularly when the witnesses have been summoned at the trial. In between we have no evidence of the misuse of the concession of bail.
4. In view of these circumstances, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner causes any hindrance or delay in the matter of trial, the learned Magistrate would be well justified to cancel the bail to expedite the matter. N.H.Q./N-233/L Bail allowed.