1986 PLP 1174 (SCMR)
ABDUL GHANI and another — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1174 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL GHANI and another — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1174 (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 1986 PLP 1174 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1174 (SCMR) (ABDUL GHANI and another — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M. Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 24th March, 1986.
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M. Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- M. Ajmal, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
- MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑Accused/appellants were charged under section 17(3) of the Hudood Ordinance, 1979. They applied for bail to the learned Sessions Judge, Bannu who rejected their bail application on the ground that they were directly charged in the F.I.R. which was promptly lodged and have been attributed effective role in the commission of the offence, per order, dated 8‑1‑1986. The accused/ appellants then approached the Peshawar High Court, D.I. Khan Bench and the learned High Court Judge also refused to enlarge them on bail vide the impugned order, dated 18‑2‑1986 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4 of 1986. The accused /appellants now came up to this Court seeking bail. Notice was issued to the Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P., who is present.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against Peshawar High Court order, dated 18th February, 1986).
S. 497--Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(3)--Bail--Case of further enquiry--Accused directly charged in F.I.R.--Crime weapon found lying in drain and not recovered from accused--Guilt of accused not prima facie established--Bail allowed. M. Ajmal, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑Accused/appellants were charged under section 17(3) of the Hudood Ordinance, 1979. They applied for bail to the learned Sessions Judge, Bannu who rejected their bail application on the ground that they were directly charged in the F.I.R. which was promptly lodged and have been attributed effective role in the commission of the offence, per order, dated 8‑1‑1986. The accused/ appellants then approached the Peshawar High Court, D.I. Khan Bench and the learned High Court Judge also refused to enlarge them on bail vide the impugned order, dated 18‑2‑1986 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4 of 1986. The accused /appellants now came up to this Court seeking bail. Notice was issued to the Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P., who is present.
2. Learned counsel for the accused /appellants Maulvi Sirajul Haq urged before us that the accused /appellants have not been connected with the commission of the offence as no recovery of the pistol from them has been made, and instead the same was found lying in a drain which was picked up by the witness and handed over to the police; and that this is a case of further enquiry in which the guilty of the accused /appellants has not prima facie been established to make out a case under section 17 (3) of the aforesaid Ordinance.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for, the parties. We convert Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 8/R/8ti into appeal. We consider that in this case the accused/ appellants would be entitled to concession of bail. We order that the accused /appellants be admitted to bail in the sum of rupees twenty‑five thousand with one surety each to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Sessions Judge, Rannu. Appeal allowed. M.I. Order accordingly.