P L D 1389 Peshawar 141 (PLP)
ATAUR REHMAN KHAN Petitioner Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD and 2 others Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1389 Peshawar 141 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Abdu1 Karim Khan Kundi, J |
| Parties | ATAUR REHMAN KHAN Petitioner Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD and 2 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1389 Peshawar 141 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1389 Peshawar 141 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Abdu1 Karim Khan Kundi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1389 Peshawar 141 (PLP) (ATAUR REHMAN KHAN Petitioner Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD and 2 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Q. Muhammad Anwar for Petitioner.
- Maqsood Anwar and Miss Perveen Bono for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497(5)‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑Co‑accused equally charged was released on bail after arrest‑‑Accused had better case on account of documentary evidence and opinion of Investigating Officer to proclaim them innocent‑‑Accused thus were entitled to continue on pre‑arrest bail.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.497(5)‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑Co‑accused equally charged was released on bail after arrest‑‑Accused had better case on account of documentary evidence and opinion of Investigating Officer to proclaim them innocent‑‑Accused thus were entitled to continue on pre‑arrest bail. Q. Muhammad Anwar for Petitioner. Maqsood Anwar and Miss Perveen Bono for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th February, 1989. Three accused namely one Shahjehan and two respondents were charged for trespass and ineffective firing. All of them had applied for bail before arrest. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has confirmed the interim bail of the respondents since the documents and evidence brought on file reported that the Adda in dispute belonged to Nawabzada Muhammad Khalid Khan father of Fateh Muhammad Khan accused‑respondent No.1 and further the I.O. has opined in the case diary that the accused‑respondents were nit involved in the case. The interim bail of Shahjehan co‑accused was, however, not confirmed and 'he was taken into custody.
2. A pertinent question was put to the learned counsel for the complainant if co‑accused Shahjehan has since been releases on bail after‑arrest and his answer was in affirmative. He was further asked if the complainant has also applied for cancellation of the After arrest bail of Shahjehan co‑accused and his reply was in the negative. As such there shall arise a question whether a pre‑arrest bail granted to the accused‑respondents should in circumstances be recalled when it appears all probable rather certain that they will also be released on bail after arrest on merits since their co‑accused equally charged has been released on bail while the respondents are also having a better case on account of the documentary evidence as well the opinion of the investigation officer to proclaim them innocent. This circumstance of not moving against the grant of after arrest bail of the co‑accused A would impliedly spell out mala fides on the part of the complainant and would entitle the accused‑respondents to continue on the pre‑arrest bail as granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The bail cancellation application is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./709/P Bail cancellation application dismissed.