2024 PLP 209 (SCMR)
M TAIMOOR ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE through P. G. Punjab and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2024 PLP 209 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Qazi Faez Isa, C.J., Amin-ud-Din Khan and Athar Minallah, JJ |
| Parties | M TAIMOOR ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE through P. G. Punjab and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Practice and procedure, (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2024 PLP 209 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Practice and procedure, (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2024 PLP 209 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Qazi Faez Isa, C.J., Amin-ud-Din Khan and Athar Minallah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2024 PLP 209 (SCMR) (M TAIMOOR ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE through P. G. Punjab and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hassan Raza Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Agha Muhammad Ali, Advocate Supreme Court (on caveat) for Respondent No. 2/Complainant.
- ----S. 497---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Bail application dismissed as withdrawn---Subsequent/second bail application, filing of---Fresh grounds---Scope---Present criminal petition for leave to appeal had been filed against the impugned order of the High Court wherein it was recorded that the petitioner's counsel did not press the (bail) petition in order to approach the Supreme Court---As per counsel of petitioner (accused) this statement was made because earlier the matter had come before the Supreme Court in another petition which was disposed of by recording that petitioner's counsel did not press it for the time being; and that a fresh ground had accrued to the petitioner on which bail was sought---Held, that if a fresh ground had become available to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order then counsel should not have withdrawn the petition, but insisted that the petition be decided on merits---Legal position on the present issue was by now well settled by the Supreme Court in the cases reported as Nazir Ahmad v. State (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 241) and Muhammad Aslam v. State (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 41)---At present stage counsel for petitioner stated he did not press present petition as he wanted to avail an alternate remedy---Accordingly present petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 12 October 2023 passed by Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi in Criminal Misc. No.2761-B of 2023) Nazir Ahmad v. State PLD 2014 SC 241 and Muhammad Aslam v. State PLD 2015 SC 41 ref.
Repeated use of word 'august' before the Supreme Court of Pakistan or its alternative 'August Court'
Supreme Court observed that the Supreme Court is mentioned in the Constitution as the 'Supreme Court of Pakistan', without any prefix or adjective, and everyone should endeavour to abide by the descriptions mentioned in the Constitution.
Judgment & Decree
Qazi Faez Isa, C.J. This criminal petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the order dated 12 October 2023 wherein it is recorded that the petitioner's counsel did not press this petition in order to approach 'august' Supreme Court of Pakistan. It is submitted that this statement was made because earlier the matter had come before this Court in Criminal Petition No.260/2023 which was disposed of vide order dated 6 April 2023 by recording that petitioner's counsel did not press it for the time being. Learned counsel submits that a fresh ground had accrued to the petitioner on which bail was sought.
2. If a fresh ground had become available to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order then counsel should not have withdrawn the petition, but insisted that the petition be decided on merits. The legal position is by now well settled by this Court since the last about ten years in the cases of Nazir Ahmad v. State (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 241) and Muhammad Aslam v. State (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 41). At this stage learned counsel states he does not press this petition as he wants to avail of an alternate remedy. Accordingly the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
3. We also observe the repeated use of word 'august' used before the Supreme Court of Pakistan or it is used as an alternative August Court. This Court is mentioned in the Constitution as the Supreme Court of Pakistan, without any prefix or adjective, and we should all endeavour to abide by the descriptions mentioned in the Constitution. MWA/M-63/SC Petition dismissed.