PCRLJ 1986

1986 P Cr (PLP)

MUHAMMAD SALEEM Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 562/6 of 1985, decided on 17th June, 1985.
Honorable Judges
Khizar Hayat, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1986 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Khizar Hayat, J
Parties MUHAMMAD SALEEM 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 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: Khizar Hayat, J.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SALEEM 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

  • Ijaz Muhammad Bhatti for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 377‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑All eye‑witnesses having sworn affidavits about innocence of accused‑‑Fact not controverted‑--Bail granted in circumstances. Sh. Abdul Rahim for the State.

Judgment & Decree

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 377‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑All eye‑witnesses having sworn affidavits about innocence of accused‑‑Fact not controverted‑--Bail granted in circumstances. Ijaz Muhammad Bhatti for Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Rahim for the State. Muhammad Saleem, petitioner, is accused of having committed carnal intercourse against the order of nature with Ghulam Murtaza, complainant, on 4‑12‑1984. At his instance, the case was registered with Old Kotwali Police, Multan. The petitioner has been arrested and challaned.

2. The petitioner having remained unsuccessful to obtain bail from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, has filed the instant petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the State and also perused the record.

3. It is contended that the case is false and that all the eye‑witnesses, namely, Muhammad Hassan, Malik Allah Yar and also Hap Muhammad Hussain, the alleged father of the victim, have sworn affidavit as to the innocence of the petitioner. This fact has not been controverted by the other side. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to allow this petition. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bailbond in the sum of Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Multan. S. A. Bail granted.