1988 P Cr (PLP)
BASHIR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khizar Hayat, J |
| Parties | BASHIR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 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 1988 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: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (BASHIR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qadeer Ahmad Siddiqui for Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.11‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused absenting himself from Court during trim‑‑Non‑bailable warrants issued‑‑Accused absenting himself due to theft of his donkey‑‑Counsel assuring that accused would not absent himself during trial‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Iqbal for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.11‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused absenting himself from Court during trim‑‑Non‑bailable warrants issued‑‑Accused absenting himself due to theft of his donkey‑‑Counsel assuring that accused would not absent himself during trial‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Qadeer Ahmad Siddiqui for Petitioner Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Iqbal for the State. This is a petition for the grant of bail. The petitioner was facing trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala in a case under section 11 of the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. He allegedly absented from the Court on 14‑12‑1987. He was, therefore, arrested in pursuance of non‑bailable warrants issued by trial Court and the petitioner's bail plea had been declined by the lower Court, hence this application.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the State and also perused the record.
3. It is stated that the petitioner is a poor man. He could not attend the Court on the date of hearing (14‑12‑1987) because his donkey had been stolen. However, learned counsel assured that the A petitioner would not absent it future In the circumstances, I feel inclined to allow this petition and direct that the petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. S.A./B‑51/L. Bail allowed.