PCRLJ 1985

1985 P (PLP)

IDREES KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1275/B of 1985, decided on 29th June, 1985.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Munir Khan, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1985 P (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Muhammad Munir Khan, J
Parties IDREES KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 P (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 1985 P (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 P (PLP) (IDREES KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • M.A. Hameed Awan for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑--S. 497‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Trial not concluding within statutory period‑‑Case, held, fit for grant of bail‑‑Bail granted in circumstances. Noor Muhammad Paras for the State.

Judgment & Decree

‑‑‑--S. 497‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Trial not concluding within statutory period‑‑Case, held, fit for grant of bail‑‑Bail granted in circumstances. M.A. Hameed Awan for Petitioner. Noor Muhammad Paras for the State. This is an application for bail on behalf of 1drees Khan petitioner under Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 at Police Station Qila Gujjar Singh vide F.I.R. No. 221/84, dated 24‑6‑1984.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the statutory period has passed yet the trial has not concluded. The learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert it. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that although the statutory period has passed yet the trial has not concluded and as such it is a fit case fort the grant of bail of the petitioner. He shall be released on bail on A furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with two surities each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty) Magistrate, Lahore. H.A.K. Bail granted.