2006 PLP 1226(1) (YLR)
ABDUL HAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1226(1) (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Aslam, J |
| Parties | ABDUL HAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1226(1) (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1226(1) (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Aslam, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1226(1) (YLR) (ABDUL HAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 8th July, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Fact of filing of previous bail application which was dismissed, was suppressed by accused
There were 4 or 5 bail applications where facts were suppressed by accused or their counsel front the High Court
Accused or his counsel failed to appear on date fixed for hearing of the present bail application
Bail application was dismissed and attitude of litigants and their counsel, was disapproved and condemned by the High Court. Shahzadi Parveen for the State with Muhammad Hussain, A.S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.
It was noted in order dated 1-4-2005 that fact of filing of the previous bail application (Crl. Miscellaneous No.8888-B of 2004) was suppressed which was dismissed on 20-12-2004. This is at last 4 or 5 bail applications where facts are suppressed by the petitioner or their counsel from this Court. This case was directed to be fixed on 19-4-2005 by the same order dated 1-4-2005, but instead of 19-4-2005, this case has been fixed today i.e. 8-7-2005, yet neither the petitioner nor his counsel bothered to appear. The attitude of the litigants as well as their counsel is disapproved and condemned. In view of the above, this bail application is dismissed. H.B.T./A-587/L Application dismissed.