1988 PLP 1452 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ and 3 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1452 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ and 3 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1452 (SCMR)?
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 PLP 1452 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1452 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ and 3 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Q.M. Salim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in both Petitions).
- Faiz Muhammad Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent (in both Petitions).
- Date of hearing: 2nd August, 1987.
- Q.M. Salim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both Petitions).
- The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners was that all the six of them were found innocent by the police during the investigation and had been placed in column No.2 of the challan. We issued notice to the Advocate‑General and as a result State counsel has appeared today. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties at some length we are of the view that these petitions be converted into appeals. It is ordered accordingly.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 30th June, 1987 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1493/B of 1987 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.1882/B of 1987).
Ss.497 & 498--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/307/148/149 109--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Bail, grant of- Appreciation of evidence--Petitioners accused under Ss.302/307/148/149 & 109, P.P.C. found innocent by police and placed in column No.2 of challan but were refused bail by High Court--Pleas of erroneous consideration by High Court of statements made by accused petitioners before police, substitution of its own opinion by Court for that of the police and Court being influenced by persons coming forth and making statements on oath in support of complainant's version although none of them was eye-witness--Pleas raised by .accused being substantial and infirmities found in the impugned order, petitions converted into appeals and bail granted.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.224 of 1987 has been filed by Muhammad Mumtaz, Umerdraz, Sarfraz and Dilbaz petitioners, whereas Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.225 of 1987 has been filed by Ahmad Sher and Shamsher petitioners. Both the petitions for leave are directed against the orders of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, refusing bail to both the sets of petitioners who alongwith others are involved in a case under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. read with section 109, P.P.C. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners was that all the six of them were found innocent by the police during the investigation and had been placed in column No.2 of the challan. We issued notice to the Advocate‑General and as a result State counsel has appeared today. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties at some length we are of the view that these petitions be converted into appeals. It is ordered accordingly. Learned counsel for both the sets of appellants argued that a perusal of the impugned orders would show that the alleged statements of accused‑appellants .made before the police had been erroneously considered by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court for refusing bail to them. It was next submitted that the second ground advanced in the impugned orders for refusing bail to the appellants was that a number of persons had come forward and made an oath in support of the version put forward by the complainant side although none of them was an eye‑witness of the occurrence. It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge in the impugned orders proceeded to make detailed comments on the police diary and on his own arrived at the conclusion that the reasons advanced by the investigating agency for declaring the six appellants as innocent were not sound. According to the learned counsel the learned Single Judge substituted his own opinion over that of the police. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand argued that. incomplete challan had already been put up and that it may not be appropriate at this stage to release the appellants on bail. In the light of the arguments advanced we agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that there are aforesaid three infirmities in the impugned orders of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in this case. Both the sets of the appellants in the course of the investigation had been found innocent by the police and their names have been placed in column No.2. In these circumstances bail should not have seen refused to them on the grounds recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned' orders. We, therefore, allow the appeals and admit all the six appellants to bail subject to their furnishing security in the sum of Rs.25,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Khushab. M.I. /M‑464/S Bail granted.