P L D 1991 Lahore 391 (PLP)
GOHAR MAJID NOSHAHI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1991 Lahore 391 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GOHAR MAJID NOSHAHI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1991 Lahore 391 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (f) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (g) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1991 Lahore 391 (PLP)?
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: P L D 1991 Lahore 391 (PLP) (GOHAR MAJID NOSHAHI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad Malik and Shamas Mahmood, for Petitioner (in Crl. Misc. No. 4063/B of 1990).
- Muhammad Ashraf Bajwa for Petitioner (in Crl. Misc. No 207/B of 1991).
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 392
Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976), S.6
Allegation of attempted armed robbery
First application of accused for bail was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge "C" against which order, accused had approached High Court
Without disclosing the fact that his earlier bail application had been dismissed by another Additional Sessions Judge and without disclosing that he had moved the High Court for his release on bail, accused filed a fresh petition for bail in the Court of Session, which was entrusted to another Additional Sessions Judge "M" who released accused on interim bail after arrest the very next day of filing the bail petition
Conduct of accused, held, was by itself sufficient to refuse any discretionary relief which he might be seeking from High Court
Counsel who had moved the second bail application before Additional Sessions Judge during the pendency of the petition before High Court was the same person who had filed the bail application before High Court--Record did not show that said counsel had taken the Additional Sessions Judge into confidence about the dismissal of an earlier bail application of the same accused by another Additional Sessions Judge or about the pendency of bail petition before the High Court
Such conduct of the counsel, held further, was condemnable
Counsel had expressed sincere remorse; had withdrawn from the case; had tendered apologies and having had undertaken to be careful in future, High Court decided not to proceed against him with observation that such an act on the part of counsel was not only an act of gross professional misconduct but was also an act calculated to subvert the course of justice culpable under the Contempt of Court Act, 1976. [p. 396] A
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.392
Accused was burdened with an attempted armed robbery in which an armed co-accused of the petitioner had been arrested on the spot
Grant of interim bail to such accused after arrest without even looking at the police file on the ground that one co-accused had already been admitted to bail
Held. releasing an accused person on post-arrest bail, be it interim or otherwise, on the ground that one co-accused had already been admitted to bail, was adopting an unsafe course of administration of
S. 497
High Court deprecated the practice in cases where on being refused bail once, the accused persons were being admitted to bail, by successor Presiding Officers and at times even by the same Presiding Officer, in complete derogation of their earlier findings and without any fresh grounds having appeared or accrued in the meantime; and where durang the pendency of bail petition before the High Court, the subordinate Courts were approached for the same relief and after securing bail from the lower Courts the petitions before the High Court were either withdrawn or were allowed to be dismissed for non-prosecution.--[Practice and procedure]. [p. 397] C
S. 497
Grant or refusal of bail by subordinate Courts
High Court directed the Courts of Session and Magistrates to insist on a certificate in each bail matter in the terms mentioned:--[Practice and procedure].
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 390 & 393
Held,
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392
Accused were burdened with an attempted armed robbery in which an armed co-accused person had been arrested on the spot
Contention that armed persons in the presence of armed companions could not have been overpowered by one of the inimates of the house, was not a rule to which there could be no exception and further contention that statement of a co-accused could not be used against his co-accused persons was also legally ill-based and untenable as admissibility or evidentiary value of such a statement was a matter which could be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of grant or refusal of bail. [p. 399] G
S. 497
Successive bail applications
Subsequent bail applications must be placed before the same Judge who had dealt with first bail application
Counsel must disclose fact of having filed previous application and state result thereof.
[Practice and procedure]. [p. 399] H
Judgment & Decree
(a) the information whether any bail application by the concerned accused or any of his co-accused was or was not earlier filed before the said Court; (b) in case any such application was earlier filed, then the result of the same; (c) the information whether any application was earlier filed by the concerned accused person before any Court and if so, then the fate of the same; (d) whether any petition seeking release of the accused person in question is pending adjudication before any other Court including the higher Court or Courts. [p. 398] D Till such instructions are issued by the Chief Justice of the High Court, all the subordinate Courts shall ensure strict compliance of the directions contained in the above paras. [p. 398] E (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 390 & 393
Held, fact that case of an accused person did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. would not automatically entitle accused person to be admitted to bail, as of right
Non-prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr. P.C. only indicated that there was no prohibition or bar in admitting the concerned accused person to bail
Accused, nevertheless, remained accused of non-bailable offence and the question whether the accused should or should not be admitted to bail continued to remain a discretionary matter to be decided by the Court in accordance with established principles regulating the law of, bail
Allegations levelled against the accused persons and their conduct were also relevant considerations in the exercise of discretion by the Court
Petitioner and his coaccused in the case were.alleged to have trespassed into the house while armed with fire-arms and a dagger in order to commit dacoity
Additional Sessions Judge released the accused.petitioner on bail on the ground that no dacoity had actually been committed and that the act of the petitioner and his co-accused was at the most punishable under S.393, P.P.C. the sentence of which was seven years which took the petitioner's case out of the purview of the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C: =-Such approach was not tenable in law. [p. 398] F (f) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392
Accused were burdened with an attempted armed robbery in which an armed co-accused person had been arrested on the spot
Contention that armed persons in the presence of armed companions could not have been overpowered by one of the inimates of the house, was not a rule to which there could be no exception and further contention that statement of a co-accused could not be used against his co-accused persons was also legally ill-based and untenable as admissibility or evidentiary value of such a statement was a matter which could be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of grant or refusal of bail. [p. 399] G (g) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
S. 497
Successive bail applications
Subsequent bail applications must be placed before the same Judge who had dealt with first bail application
Counsel must disclose fact of having filed previous application and state result thereof.
[Practice and procedure]. [p. 399] H Bashir Ahmad Malik and Shamas Mahmood, for Petitioner (in Crl. Misc. No. 4063/B of 1990). Muhammad Ashraf Bajwa for Petitioner (in Crl. Misc. No 207/B of 1991). Hafiz Ghulam Bari for the State. Shawar Khilgi for Accused-Respondent (in Crl. Misc. No. 4392/B of 1990).