1976 P Cr (PLP)
ALLAH DITTA AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1976 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 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 1976 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 P Cr (PLP) (ALLAH DITTA AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Hussain Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ S. 497‑Bail‑Delay, in submission of challan‑Petitioners accused of attempting rape in custody but challan not put in Court nor any steps taken to ensure its early submission‑Bail granted, in circum stances.‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 376/511/452/354.‑[Bail). Rashid Malik for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he has received instructions in writing that the challan was not submitted in Court till at least 17th of November 1973 ; and that now the case is fixed for 5th of December 1973 the ,challan according to the last orders, was being awaited.
2. It was noted in my order dated 12‑11‑1973 that the challan was even then complete and was awaiting only scrutiny by the Prosecuting Branch. The A. S. I. who appeared with the learned counsel for the State on the last hearing was directed to submit the challan on or by 14th of November 1973 "failing which he shall have to submit an explanation to this Court." It was further directed that on submission of challan and fulfilment of further necessary requirements with regard to delivery of copies at least the prosecutrix and one other eye‑witness should have been examined by the end of November 1973.
3. Learned counsel for the State has no fresh information from the District Administration nor has the A. S. I. appeared today. Learned counsel is unable to contradict the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. For reasons best known to the police, it appears, the order passed by this Court on 12‑11‑1973, has not been complied with not any explanation has been submitted so far. This apart from affecting the question of bail, prima facie amounts to the abuse of process of Court. I have, therefore, no alternative but to accept this petition and allow bail to both the petitioners who shall be released if they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount, each to the satisfaction of the learned Ilaqa Magistrate.
4. This order shall not be a bar to the learned Magistrate acting in accordance with law including the cancellation of bail after the prosecutrix and the eye‑witnesses are examined, and if a charge of any offence punishable with transportation for life and ten years imprisonment is framed against the accused.
5. Copy of the order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the petitioners without any delay. Bail allowed.