1990SCMR1318 (PLP)
MEERU‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990SCMR1318 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ |
| Parties | MEERU‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990SCMR1318 (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 1990SCMR1318 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990SCMR1318 (PLP) (MEERU‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Latif Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jaferi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 24th January, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 6‑12‑1989 of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench, Multan in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1259‑R of 1989). ‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/307/148/149‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Contentions raised before Supreme Court were examined by High Court and found untenable‑‑‑High Court had refused bail in its discretion which could not be said to have been exercised without sufficient basis or to be illegal‑‑‑No ground for bail, thus, was made out‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑‑Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against refusal of bail by the High Court in a case under section 302/307/148/149,P.P.C.
2. The contention is that the petitioner's involvement is a counterblast as he was a complainant in a murder case in which the complainant's son and son‑in‑law were accused persons, and the petitioner was not present at the time of occurrence being admitted in a hospital in Lauralai.
3. The contentions were examined by the High Court and found untenable. The High Court has refused bail in its discretion and it cannot be said that it has been exercised without sufficient basis or is illegal.
4. No ground is made out. Petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑1243/S Petition dismissed.