1989 PLP 2028(2) (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD YASIN KHAN and 2 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2028(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD YASIN KHAN and 2 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2028(2) (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 1989 PLP 2028(2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2028(2) (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD YASIN KHAN and 2 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemat Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by lqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Ch. Ghulam Qadir, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.
- M. Sharif Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 3 (State).
- Date of hearing: 9th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court Lahore dated 28th May, 1988 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1314/13 of 1988). ‑‑‑S.497 (5)‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑Defence version had not yet been fully investigated‑‑Not a fit case for cancellation of bail at such a stage‑‑Trial Court might after recording essential evidence, cancel the bail, if the case for cancellation was then made out.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑We have heard learned counsel for the parties in this appeal, as well as the investigating officer who has brought the record. It appears that the defence version has not yet been fully investigated. Therefore in our view it is not a fit case for cancellation of bail at this stage. However, the trial Court may after recording essential evidence cancel the bail allowed to the respondents if the case for the same is then made out. This appeal is dismissed. M.A.K./M‑934/S Appeal dismissed.