1981 P Cr (PLP)
MIRAJ DIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1981 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Saeed-ur-Rehman, J |
| Parties | MIRAJ DIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 P Cr (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 1981 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Saeed-ur-Rehman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 P Cr (PLP) (MIRAJ DIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. A. Zafar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497 (1), proviso-Bail-Petitioner charged under S. 377/511, P. P. C. detained in Jail for a continuous period exceeding one year and trial not yet concluded-Held: Petitioner became entitled to bail by virtue of proviso to S. 497 (1)-No allegation of petitioner or any other person acting on his behalf having caused delay in trial, petitioner released on bail. Sardar A. Khalid for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1038-B of 1980, decided on 4th May 1980. -- S. 497 (1), proviso-Bail-Petitioner charged under S. 377/511, P. P. C. detained in Jail for a continuous period exceeding one year and trial not yet concluded-Held: Petitioner became entitled to bail by virtue of proviso to S. 497 (1)-No allegation of petitioner or any other person acting on his behalf having caused delay in trial, petitioner released on bail. M. A. Zafar for Petitioner. Sardar A. Khalid for the State. The petitioner was arrested on 19th April, 1979 in a case of attempted sodomy and he is in Jail eversince. As he has been in Jail for a conti nuous period exceeding one year and the trial not concluded, he has become entitled to bail by virtue of the proviso to section 497, sub-section (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no allegation that the delay in the trial has been occasioned by an act or omission of the petitioner or any other person acting on his behalf. I, therefore, direct that he shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Bail granted.