PCRLJ 1989

1989 P Cr (PLP)

ABDUL RAZAQ‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
Criminal Bail Application No. 991 of 1988, decided on 28th September, 1988.
Honorable Judges
Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1989 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, J
Parties ABDUL RAZAQ‑‑Applicant 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 1989 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 1989 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, J.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL RAZAQ‑‑Applicant 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)‑

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Case of applicant hot distinguishable from that of co accused who was also armed with dagger and allowed bail by Trial Court Other co‑accused had also been released on bail‑‑Bail allowed to petitioner in circumstances. Sardar Muhammad Ishaque for Applicant. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, A.A.‑G. for the State.

Judgment & Decree

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Case of applicant hot distinguishable from that of co accused who was also armed with dagger and allowed bail by Trial Court Other co‑accused had also been released on bail‑‑Bail allowed to petitioner in circumstances. Sardar Muhammad Ishaque for Applicant. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, A.A.‑G. for the State. The main ground urged in‑ this bail application is that co‑accused Ghulam Mustafa, who was also armed with dagger, has been released on bail by the trial Court, whereas bail has been refused to the present applicant though the case of the present applicant is not distinguishable from that of the co‑accused Ghulam Mustafa. It is further submitted that co‑accused Ejaz Hussain has also been released on bail by the trial Court on the ground of age. It is conceded by the learned AA.‑G. appearing for the State that the case of the present applicant is not distinguishable than that of co‑accused Ghulam Mustafa and as such he has no objection if application is granted. I, therefore order the applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. M.B.A./A‑433/K Bail granted.