SCMR 2005

2005 PLP 745 (SCMR)

MAQSOOD AHMED — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD NAZIR alias NAZIR ALI and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Petition No.7/L of 2003, decided on 13th May, 2003.
Honorable Judges
Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2005 PLP 745 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ
Parties MAQSOOD AHMED — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD NAZIR alias NAZIR ALI and another — Respondents
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 745 (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 2005 PLP 745 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 745 (SCMR) (MAQSOOD AHMED — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD NAZIR alias NAZIR ALI and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Munir Ahmed Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Ozair Chughtai, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
  • Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 13th May, 2003.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 28-11-2002 passed in Crl. Misc. No.2326/B of 2002).

S. 497(5)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/337-F(iii)/ 337-L(2)/365/365-A/148/149/109

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)

Post-arrest bail, grant of

Petition for cancellation of bail before Supreme Court

High Court had given cogent reasons while extending the concession of bail to accused

No justification warranting interference by Supreme Court in the impugned judgment could be pointed out

Leave to appeal was refused to complainant accordingly.

Judgment & Decree

TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.

Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 28-11-2002 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, has admitted respondent No.1 Muhammad Nazir alias Nazir Ali to post-arrest bail in an offence emanating out of F.I.R. No.397 registered on 22-10-2001 under sections 302/324/337-F(iii)/337-L(ii)/365/365-A/148/149/109, P.P.C. at Police Station Mumtazabad, Multan.

2. We need not give the facts of the case as the same have been amply given in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court.

3. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. We have noticed that the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has given cogent reasons while extending the concession of bail to respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any justification warranting our interference in the impugned judgment.

4. Resultantly, this petition has no merit, which is accordingly, dismissed and leave refused. N.H.Q./M-97/S Leave refused.