1986 P Cr (PLP)
HAKAM ALI Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, J |
| Parties | HAKAM ALI Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 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 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (HAKAM ALI Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mehr Ghulam Ali Mubashar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Challan although submitted yet date of commencement of trial not yet known‑‑No direct testimony on record to connect petitioner with offence rather entire prosecution case resting on last seen evidence and extra‑judicial confession‑‑Bail allowed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Challan although submitted yet date of commencement of trial not yet known‑‑No direct testimony on record to connect petitioner with offence rather entire prosecution case resting on last seen evidence and extra‑judicial confession‑‑Bail allowed, in circumstances. Mehr Ghulam Ali Mubashar for Petitioner. This is a second application filed by Hakam Ali, who alongwith two others is facing murder charge. Two of his companions, namely, Abdur Razzaq and Muhammad Ishaque were admitted to bail by me by my order, dated 16‑12‑1984. Application of, Hakam Ali was dismissed. Learned counsel appearing in support of this application submits that a year has passed and‑ challan has not been submitted. Even on merits .it is contended that virtually this is a case :of no evidence because there is no direct testimony. The entire prosecution case rests on last seen evidence and extra‑judicial confession. The Inspector who has brought the relevant record submits that challan has now been submitted but he is not in a position to contradict what the counsel submits with regard to the evidence against the petitioner. I do not want to express my opinion about the merits at this stage. Though the challan has been submitted but it is not known when the trial is likely to commence. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. , Okara. S. G. D. Bail granted,