1989 P Cr (PLP)
MUBASHIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazal Karim, J |
| Parties | MUBASHIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions 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 Lahore bench comprising: Fazal Karim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (MUBASHIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Akmal Salimi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1560), S. 302/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused in jail for last over three years‑‑Supplementary challan against him not yet reaching Trial Court and trial of accused nowhere in sight‑‑Accused released on bail in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Bail‑‑Abscondence‑‑Fact that accused was declared as absconder, held, should not stand in way of his release on bail.‑‑ [Abscondence]. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1560), S. 302/34‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused in jail for last over three years‑‑Supplementary challan against him not yet reaching Trial Court and trial of accused nowhere in sight‑‑Accused released on bail in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Bail‑‑Abscondence‑‑Fact that accused was declared as absconder, held, should not stand in way of his release on bail.‑‑ [Abscondence]. M. Akmal Salimi for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Report from the Sessions Court, Gujrat, has been received. The petitioner was arrested on 9‑8‑1985; since then he has been in jail. If the report of the learned Sessions Judge is to be believed, then the supplementary challan against him has not yet reached the Court. That means that the trial of the petitioner is nowhere in sight. The mere fact that the petitioner had been declared as an absconder should not, in my view stand in the way of his release on' bail. I, therefore, allow him to be released on bail on his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like` amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. M.Y.H./M‑989/L Bail granted.