PCRLJ 2003

2003 P Cr (PLP)

SAFFAR and 3 others‑‑‑Applicants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
Criminal Bail Application No.S‑710 of 2002, decided on 20th November, 2002.
Honorable Judges
Syed Zawwar Hussain Jafferi, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2003 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members Syed Zawwar Hussain Jafferi, J
Parties SAFFAR and 3 others‑‑‑Applicants 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 2003 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 2003 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Syed Zawwar Hussain Jafferi, J.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 P Cr (PLP) (SAFFAR and 3 others‑‑‑Applicants 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)‑‑‑

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑S. 498‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/114/504/109/34‑‑ Pre‑arrest bail‑‑‑No .evidence was available on record to show that the accused were being involved in the case mala fide and falsely and that they would be humiliated or disgraced with ulterior motives of maltreatment at the instance of the complainant party‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail was refused to accused in circumstances. Zia‑ul‑Hassan v. The State PLD 1984 SC 192 ref. Azizullah M. Buriro for Applicants. Ali Azhar Tunio, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.

Judgment & Decree

Azizullah M. Buriro for Applicants. Ali Azhar Tunio, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. On 7‑11‑2002 it was stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that interim order, dated 25‑10‑2002 is intact and the learned Sessions Judge, Dadu has not recalled the same. In fact bail application was disposed by the learned Sessions Judge on 6‑11‑2002 and passed the order which is reproduced hereinbelow:‑‑ "In view of the report that injured Muhammad Qasim has expired, this bail application has become infructuous hence dismissed regarding section 324, P.P.C. as the composition of the case has now changed. (Sd.) District Judge, Dadu." In view of the position learned counsel appeared on 7‑11‑2002 and urged that the interim order has not been recalled by the learned Sessions Judge after changed circumstances and applicants/accused will appear before the learned Sessions Judge for seeking bail in changed circumstances due to demise of injured Muhammad Qasim. In fact order dated 6‑11‑2002 was not brought to the notice of this Court whereas the case was already fixed before the learned Sessions Judge on 6‑11‑2002. The grounds urged by Mr. Azizullah M. Buriro for grant of pre‑arrest bail in a murder charge are not attracted as the injuries sustained by the deceased have turned to be cause of death of Muhammad Qasim. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General submits that there is no mala fide on the part of prosecution/police to implicate the applicants in a false charge. In view of the caselaw laid down in the case of Zia‑ul-Hassan v. The State PLD 1984 SC 192 wherein it has been held that the court who has no power to grant bail before arrest unless all conditions laid down from superior Courts from time to time are satisfied. It is further held in the above authority that mala fide of intended arrest being most essential (of such conditions), same to be specifically stated. It is further held in the above authority that the Court granting bail is to consider to examine question of such action frustrating investigation vis -a‑vis various factors including relevant recovery. In view of this position and the caselaw of the Honourable apex Court there is no evidence to show that the applicants/accused are being involved mala fide and falsely and they will be humiliated with ulterior motives of maltreatment, disgrace, at the instance of complainant party. The applicants/accused are required to surrender before Investigating Officer for conclusion of investigation as early as possible. Resultantly Criminal Bail Application No.S‑710 of 2002 is dismissed. N.H.Q./S‑260/K Pre‑arrest bail refused.