2002 PLP 695 (MLD)
.Brig. (Retd.) ASLAM HAYAT QURESHI‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 695 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Nabi Soomro and Muhammad Mujeebullah Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | .Brig. (Retd.) ASLAM HAYAT QURESHI‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 695 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 695 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ghulam Nabi Soomro and Muhammad Mujeebullah Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 695 (MLD) (.Brig. (Retd.) ASLAM HAYAT QURESHI‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 21.st October, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑National Accountability Bureau Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), S.18‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused was in continuous custody since last more than one year‑‑‑No delay was shown to have been caused by or on behalf of the accused in the conclusion of the trial‑‑‑Maximum sentence prescribed under the law for the offence was 14 years' R.I. only‑.‑Bail was granted to the accused in circumstances. Asif Ali Zardari v. The‑State 1993 PCr.LJ 781 ref. M. Ilyas Khan for Applicant. Syed Tariq Ali for the State.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM NABI SOOMRO, J.‑‑,Applicant Brirgadier (Betd.) Aslam Hayat Qureshi seeks bail in NAB case Reference No.38 of 2000 pending trial before the Accountability Court No. 1, Karachi. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant mainly is that the bail to co‑accused namely Ch Ahmed Mukhtar has been granted by this Con rt,, vide order, dated 8‑10‑2001 on the ground of statutory de19Y m conclusion of trial under Proviso three of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. His further contention was that the same ground is available to the present applicant and on merits his case is less serious than the of co‑accused. Mr. Syed Tariq Ali, learned Federal counsel, however, inter alia contended that the surety amount in the case of present applicant should be more than in the case of co‑accused, in view of the prosecution allegations. The applicant was arrested on 12‑6‑2000 and he is in continuous in custody since last more than one year. Maximum sentence prescribed under the law for the offence is 14 years' R.I. only. No delay is shown to have been caused by or on behalf of the applicant in the conclusion of the trial. Learned counsel for the applicant during the hearing produced before us a copy of the Ordinance LIV of 2001 whereby the provisos three and four to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C., have been deleted. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the case of Asif Ali Zardari v. The State reported as 1993 PCr. LJ 781 and submitted that the amendment made in section 497, Cr.P.C. through the aforesaid Ordinance would have no retrospective effect. Learned Federal counsel has nothing to argue to the above contentions. Bail is accordingly granted to the applicant subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rupees ten million and P.R. I Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. H.B.T./A‑305/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.