1990 PLP 579 (SCMR)
Mst. RASHID BEGUM‑‑Appellant Versus ABDUL RASHID and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 579 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Ghulam Mujaddid arid Naimuddin, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. RASHID BEGUM‑‑Appellant Versus ABDUL RASHID and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 579 (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 1990 PLP 579 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Ghulam Mujaddid arid Naimuddin, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 579 (SCMR) (Mst. RASHID BEGUM‑‑Appellant Versus ABDUL RASHID and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.M. Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.1 and Petitioner (in Cr. M. P. 142‑R/89).
- Date of hearing: 23rd October, 1989.
- M. Nawaz Abbasi, Additional Advocate‑General and Rao Muhammad Yousaf, Advocate‑on‑Record for. the State.
- On 21‑6‑1989, Mst. Rashid Begum was heard in person. State was represented by Mr. Muhammad Akhtar, Additional Advocate‑General. He supported the plea of Mst. Rashid Begum which was for cancellation of bail of Abdul Rashid respondent.
- The appeal came up for hearing today. The appellant is present m person. Assistant Advocate‑General appeared on behalf of the State and straightway supported the plea of the appellant for cancellation of bail.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court dated 3‑12‑1988, in Cr. Misc. No. 3865‑B/88). ‑‑‑S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302=‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider as to whether order passed by High Court releasing accused on bail, in facts and circumstances of case, satisfied the well‑established practice of superior Courts. regarding release on bail of accused involved in murder cases‑‑‑Accused‑respondent was involved in a murder case of which there was no eye‑witness‑‑‑Prosecution, however, relied on circumstantial evidence consisting of statements of witnesses made before police and recovery of hatchet from accused‑respondent who alongwith his co‑accused was seen throwing something in canal on night of occurrence‑‑‑Deceased was killed by strangulation and it was alleged by a witness in his' statement that accused‑respondent had borrowed a Parna which he used for murder of deceased‑‑‑Case being of circumstantial evidence should have been left for Trial Court to examine evidentiary value of such evidence‑‑‑Accused‑respondent was not found entitled to bail in circumstances‑‑‑Bail allowed to him was accordingly cancelled. Appellant in person. M. Nawaz Abbasi, Additional Advocate‑General and Rao Muhammad Yousaf, Advocate‑on‑Record for. the State.
Judgment & Decree
On 3‑5‑1989, the petition came up for hearing before a Bench of three Judges of this Court. Notice was issued to the State and Abdur Rashid accused respondent for a date at Lahore. The Bench ordered that the police file should be made available at the time of hearing of the petition. On 21‑6‑1989, Mst. Rashid Begum was heard in person. State was represented by Mr. Muhammad Akhtar, Additional Advocate‑General. He supported the plea of Mst. Rashid Begum which was for cancellation of bail of Abdul Rashid respondent. Leave was granted to consider as to "whether the order dated 3‑12‑1988 passed by the High Court releasing Abdur Rashid respondent on bail, in the facts and circumstances of this case, satisfies the well‑established practice of the superior Courts regarding release on bail of accused involved in cases of murder". The appeal came up for hearing today. The appellant is present m person. Assistant Advocate‑General appeared on behalf of the State and straightway supported the plea of the appellant for cancellation of bail. As the accused has been remanded to custody, he separately moved application (Cr. M.P. 142‑R/89) for bail. The appeal of Mst. Rashid Begum and the application for bail on behalf of Abdul Rashid respondent ate being decided by this judgment. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused respondent who supported the impugned order of the Lahore High Court. According to the learned counsel, the discretion exercised by the High Court called upon for no interference. Respondent Abdul Rashid is involved in a murder case. There is no eye witness of the occurrence. Prosecution is relying on the circumstantial evidence which consists of the statement of Muhammad Aslam made by him before the police on 7‑9‑1988; recovery of hatchet from the respondent; statements of Javed Akhtar and Muhammad Khan made by them on 5‑6‑1988 before the police where they stated that they saw the respondent and co‑accused Riaz throwing something in the canal on the night of occurrence. The deceased was killed by strangulation. In the statement of Muhammad Aslam, it is alleged that the respondent borrowed a Parna which he used for the murder of Zaheer Ahmad. This being a case of circumstantial evidence, it should have been left for the trial Court to examine the evidentiary value of such evidence. It is not a fit case where respondent was entitled to the concession of bail. The appeal is allowed. Bail is cancelled. The petition moved on behalf of the respondent being without merit is. hereby dismissed. The trial Court is ordered to expedite the trial. N.H.Q./R‑138/S Petition dismissed.