1981 PLP 773 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AHMAD-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YAQUB AND 6 OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1981 PLP 773 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AHMAD-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YAQUB AND 6 OTHERS — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 773 (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 1981 PLP 773 (SCMR)?
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: 1981 PLP 773 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AHMAD-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YAQUB AND 6 OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Q. M. Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Ghulam Bari Saleemi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Kh. Wali Muhammad, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 7.
- Date of hearing : 22nd October, 1973,
- --- S. 497(5) - Bail, cancellation of - High Court not finding sufficient reasons to recall its earlier order granting bail and dis missing application of petitioner stating challan having been put in Court and all seven respondents having been trying to suborn main prosecution witnesses--Matter agitated before Supreme Court, notice issued to Advocate-General and counsel appearing on behalf of Advocate-General informing Court that on petitioner's similar complaint to Investigating Officer, such officer initiated security proceedings against respondents - Remedial action having been taken against respondents, case, held, calls for no interference by Supreme Court at such stage but if action taken by Police proves ineffective nothing prevents petitioner from moving committing Court for cancellation of bail and such Magistrate at liberty to cancel bail despite order of High Court.
- M. A. Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
- 5. Because of the allegation about the threats by the respondent to the principal prosecution witnesses, a notice was issued to the Advocate- General on the previous hearing to inform this Court about the State's reaction about the petitioner's allegation that the respondents are trying in suborn the prosecution witnesses and whether any remedial action was contemplated. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Advocate-General informed this Court that the petitioner had similarly complained to the Investigating Officer who has since initiated security proceedings under section 107, Cr. P. Code against the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to affirm or to deny the statement made on behalf of the State. He, however, stressed that the respondents by their conduct have given clear indications that if they are allowed to remain at large, they will tamper with the prosecution witnesses. We have no reason to doubt the correctness of the statement made on behalf of the State as to the remedial action taken against the respondents and the case does not call for any interference by this Court at this stage. If action already taken by the police proves ineffective and the respondents persist in their attempt to suborn the witnesses, there till be nothing to prevent the petitioner from moving the committing Court under section 497(5), Cr. P. Code and the learned Magistrate will be a liberty to cancel the bail, the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court notwithstanding.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment and order dated 8th June, 1973 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 726/B of 1970).
S. 497(5) - Bail, cancellation of - High Court not finding sufficient reasons to recall its earlier order granting bail and dis missing application of petitioner stating challan having been put in Court and all seven respondents having been trying to suborn main prosecution witnesses--Matter agitated before Supreme Court, notice issued to Advocate-General and counsel appearing on behalf of Advocate-General informing Court that on petitioner's similar complaint to Investigating Officer, such officer initiated security proceedings against respondents - Remedial action having been taken against respondents, case, held, calls for no interference by Supreme Court at such stage but if action taken by Police proves ineffective nothing prevents petitioner from moving committing Court for cancellation of bail and such Magistrate at liberty to cancel bail despite order of High Court. M. A. Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M. A. Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court for the State. Date of hearing : 22nd October, 1973, MUHAMMAD GUL, J.-This leave petition is from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 8th June, 1973, refusing to cancel the bail earlier allowed to respondents I to 6 herein, by his order dated 9th January, 1973 and of the seventh respondent who was enlarged on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Lyallpur. All of them are accused in a case under sections 148 and 302/149, P. P. C.
2. On the night between 20th and 21st October, 1971, the petitioner's son, Muhammad Ashraf left his parental home taking a gun with him and did not return alive. Four days later, the petitioner lodged a report with the police about the disappearance of his son without suspecting any person of foul play. Later, on the same day, it appears Muhammad Ashraf's dead body was discovered in a sugar-cane field in the village.
3. The case relating to the murder of Muhammad Ashraf was thrice investigated by different police agencies including C.
1. A. Staff, with the result that challan was not put in Court until 26th June, 1973. In the meantime the respondents were arrested and the learned Single Judge vide order dated 9th January, 1973, granted bail to respondents 2 to 6, because of the long delay in putting the challan in Court and conflicting police reports as to the respondents' participation in the offence.
4. The petitioner later applied for cancellation of bail of the seven respondents on the ground that the challan has since been put in Court and further that they are trying to suborn the main prosecution witnesses. The learned Single Judge did not find sufficient reasons to recall his earlier order and therefore dismissed the application.
5. Because of the allegation about the threats by the respondent to the principal prosecution witnesses, a notice was issued to the Advocate- General on the previous hearing to inform this Court about the State's reaction about the petitioner's allegation that the respondents are trying in suborn the prosecution witnesses and whether any remedial action was contemplated. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Advocate-General informed this Court that the petitioner had similarly complained to the Investigating Officer who has since initiated security proceedings under section 107, Cr. P. Code against the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to affirm or to deny the statement made on behalf of the State. He, however, stressed that the respondents by their conduct have given clear indications that if they are allowed to remain at large, they will tamper with the prosecution witnesses. We have no reason to doubt the correctness of the statement made on behalf of the State as to the remedial action taken against the respondents and the case does not call for any interference by this Court at this stage. If action already taken by the police proves ineffective and the respondents persist in their attempt to suborn the witnesses, there till be nothing to prevent the petitioner from moving the committing Court under section 497(5), Cr. P. Code and the learned Magistrate will be a liberty to cancel the bail, the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court notwithstanding. This petition is therefore dismissed. Petition dismissed,