2007 PLP 1033 (MLD)
KAPTAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1033 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KAPTAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1033 (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 2007 PLP 1033 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1033 (MLD) (KAPTAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 337-H(ii), 114, 148 & 149
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)
Bail had been sought on the ground of hardship
Trial Court had reported that charge was framed and absconders had been declared proclaimed offenders
Examination -in-chief of Medical Officer was recorded, but cross-examination was reserved at the request of the counsel for accused
Plea of hardship of accused could not be considered, in circumstances
Next date of hearing had been fixed and bailable warrants had been issued
Bail application was rejected with the observation that if no further progress was made within four months and the delay was not caused on the part of defence, accused would be at liberty to repeat bail application.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, J.
Granted with all just exceptions.
2. The bail is sought on the ground of hardship. A report was called from the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has reported that charge was framed on 28-2-2006. The absconders have been declared proclaimed offenders. On 20-4-2006 medical officer was present, whose examination-in-chief was recorded but the cross-examination was reserved at the request of Mr. Jai Jai Veshnu Mange Ram learned counsel for the accused. In the above circumstances, the plea of hardship cannot be considered at this stage. The next date of hearing has been fixed by the trial Court on 13-6-2006. Bailable warrants have been issued. The bail application is, therefore, rejected with the observation that if no further progress is made within four months and the delay is not caused on the part of defence, the applicant shall be at liberty to repeat the bail application. H.B.T./K-10/K Bail Refused.