2014SAC8039 (PLP)
N/A
| Citation | 2014SAC8039 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | N/A |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014SAC8039 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014SAC8039 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014SAC8039 (PLP) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Advocate-General Gilgit-Baltistan.
- 3. The State represented by learned Advocate-General failed to show that the respondent has misused the concession of bail already granted to him or has attempted to tamper with the prosecution evidence and no other ground is agitated for withdrawal of the concession of bail granted to the respondent.
- 4. When the learned Advocate-General was confronted as to whether the explosive material allegedly recovered on pointing of the respondent was ever sent to the concerned laboratory for its test? The learned Advocate-General perused the record in the court and submits that there is no such document showing that the material recovered at the instance of the respondent was ever sent to the concerned laboratory for testing. The report under section 173, Cr.P.C. submitted before the Court has also been perused with the assistance of learned Advocate-General Gilgit-Baltistan and this fact has also not been found mentioned in the said Challan/report.
Judgment & Decree
RANA MUHAMMAD ARSHAD KHAN, C.J.
This petition has been directed against the order dated 9-12-2013, passed by the learned Division Bench of the Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan, whereby, the Criminal Miscellaneous No. (B)07/2013 was accepted and the petitioner was allowed post arrest bail.
2. The State, feeling aggrieved called in question the order dated 9-12-2013 through a Criminal Petition for leave to Appeal bearing No.5 of 2014 before this court.
3. The State represented by learned Advocate-General failed to show that the respondent has misused the concession of bail already granted to him or has attempted to tamper with the prosecution evidence and no other ground is agitated for withdrawal of the concession of bail granted to the respondent.
4. When the learned Advocate-General was confronted as to whether the explosive material allegedly recovered on pointing of the respondent was ever sent to the concerned laboratory for its test? The learned Advocate-General perused the record in the court and submits that there is no such document showing that the material recovered at the instance of the respondent was ever sent to the concerned laboratory for testing. The report under section 173, Cr.P.C. submitted before the Court has also been perused with the assistance of learned Advocate-General Gilgit-Baltistan and this fact has also not been found mentioned in the said Challan/report.
5. In view of what has been discussed above there is no substance in the petition for the grant of leave to appeal. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Leave Refused. HBT/29/GB Petition dismissed.