2005 PLP 1288 (YLR)
JAMIL AHMED — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1288 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Azizullah M. Memon, J |
| Parties | JAMIL AHMED — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1288 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1288 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Azizullah M. Memon, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1288 (YLR) (JAMIL AHMED — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/324---Bail, refusal of---Accused after his release on bail had misused the same and stopped appearing before the trial Court whereupon proceedings under Ss.87 and 88, Cr.P.C. were taken against him and his surety produced him in the Court---Accused was involved in a heinous offence and he had no cogent reason for not appearing in the Trial Court on the dates of hearing in the case---Trial Court had rightly rejected the bail application of accused---Bail was refused to accused accordingly.
Headnotes / Summary
Judgment & Decree
1. Granted subject to all just exceptions.
2. Heard learned counsel for the accused/applicant and learned State Counsel. Order dated 9-1-2004 of learned trial Court, whereby the bail application stands rejected, mentions that the accused/applicant stopped appearing before the trial Court for a period of about nine months and, therefore, repeatedly warrants of his arrest were issued and proceedings under sections 87 and 88, Cr.P.C. were carried out against the applicant, whereafter his surety produced him before the trial Court; the applicant was admitted to bail by the trial Court in a case which, on the face of the contents of the F.I.R. appears to be a heinous offence; he misused the concession of such grant of bail and did not care to intimate the trial Court the reason for his absence; it is a conclusive factor that he had no cogent reason for not appearing on the dates of hearing of the case in the trial Court; hence, learned trial Court rightly rejected bail application; therefore, this bail application has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed. Needless to state that applicant will be at liberty to pursue his plea of non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses in the trial Court, which shall be heard and decided on its own merits. N.H.Q./J-18/K Bail refused.