1995 P Cr (PLP)
QAZI HAMIDULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1995 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | QAZI HAMIDULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal trial |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal trial as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 P Cr (PLP) (QAZI HAMIDULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Molvi Muhammad Sultan Alam for Petitioner,
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 420/409/467/468/471/109-- Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)
Accused was under detention for about 1-1/2 years, but neither the challan had been submitted in the Court nor any steps had been taken for its early submission-- Big chunk of amount stood already recovered from the accused and no useful purpose could be served by his further detention
Judgment & Decree
RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.
The petitioner has applied for bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 26/93 under sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 109, P.P.C. Section 5(2)47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 registered against him at Police Station F.I.A. Commercial Bank Circle, Multan.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner has been under detention for about 1-1/2 years, yet the challan has not been submitted in the Court. He contends that only an amount of Rs.16,62,727 is recoverable from the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It appears that neither the challan has been submitted in the Court nor the steps have been taken in its early submission. It is now well-settled that early trial of an accused is his inherent right. In this respect, reference can be made to Allah Ditta and another v. The State 1976 P Cr. L J 522, Farzand Ali and another v. The State and another 1971 P Cr. L J 49, Abdul Aziz alias Aziz Golo v. The State 1977 P Cr. L J 60 and Ghulam Sarwar and another v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 2588. We think that a big chunk of amount stands already recovered from the petitioner and no useful purpose will be served if he is kept in jail further. For the foregoing reasons, we admit the petitioner to bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000 (Rupees ten lacs only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Multan. N.H.Q./H-142/L Bail granted.