1986 P Cr (PLP)
GHULAM MUHI‑UD‑DIN Petitioner Versus TILE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Kamal Mustafa Bokhari, J |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHI‑UD‑DIN Petitioner Versus TILE 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: Kamal Mustafa Bokhari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (GHULAM MUHI‑UD‑DIN Petitioner Versus TILE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- G.A. Farid for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 304 s 304‑A‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Offence punishable for ten years but schedule annexed to Criminal Procedure Code not amended and continued to show offence as bailable‑ Accused also not required for further investigation‑‑Bail granted. Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Asstt. A.G. assisted by Nasim Iqbal for the State. Date, of hearing: 27th June, 1984.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 304 s 304‑A‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Offence punishable for ten years but schedule annexed to Criminal Procedure Code not amended and continued to show offence as bailable‑ Accused also not required for further investigation‑‑Bail granted. G.A. Farid for Petitioner. Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Asstt. A.G. assisted by Nasim Iqbal for the State. Date, of hearing: 27th June, 1984. Petitioner is accused of offence under section 304, P.P.C. The allegation against him is that while driving his Bus No. 7011/FDE he drove it rashly and negligently in the thickly populated area and hit Sadiq Ali deceased, a student of 6th Class, who was waiting at the Bus Adds.
2. It is argued that case against the petitioner is covered by section 304‑A, P.P.C. which is bailable. I find the offence under section 304‑A, P.P.C. is even punishable with R.I. for ten years but there is no corresponding amendment in the Schedule annexed with Criminal Procedure Code which continues to show it as bailable. On call from this Court the learned Assistant Advocate‑General has appeared and submits that the Schedule has not been‑amended and continues to show the offence as bailable.
3. The petitioner is in custody since 15‑5‑1984 and his person is no longer required for further investigation. In the Circumstances I order his release on bail subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs.20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner/ Duty Magistrate, Jhang. M. A. K. Bail granted.