2007 PLP 2823 (YLR)
MASROOR-UD-DIN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 2823 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah, J |
| Parties | MASROOR-UD-DIN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 2823 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 2823 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 2823 (YLR) (MASROOR-UD-DIN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Ss. 497, 498, 439 & 561-A---Offence of Zina .(Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.16---Bail, grant of---Accused who were allowed post-arrest bail by the Trial Court, moved an application for exemption of their appearance from the court through counsel, which application was dismissed by the impugned order---Counsel for complainant had no objection for restoration of original bail of accused, subject to their undertaking that they would appear before the Trial Court on each and every date of hearing---Accused had not been summoned by the Trial Court after submission of the challan, they had themselves opted to appear and as they informed their counsel for their inability to attend the court on the next date of hearing they signed application for exemption of their appearance before the Court, but that application was not allowed by the Trial Court---Accused who were under genuine impression that their application for exemption would be allowed, did not 'appear on said date before the .court---Trial Court bought to have issued notice to accused for their appearance, but instead it' cancelled the bail---Validity---Accused had undertaken before the High Court that they would appear before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing and would also appear thereafter also till the conclusion of the Trial---Counsel appearing on behalf of complainant had no objection on acceptance of present petition, same was allowed and impugned order of the Trial Court was set aside and accused were directed to appear before the Trial Court for a date already fixed by the Trial Court.
- Abdul Rasheed Rashid for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Munir Akhtar Minhas for the Complainant. Noor Khan. A.S.-I. with Record.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.
Petitioners Masroor-ud-Din and Muhammad Saleem through the instant petition have sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.95 of 2006 registered under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979 registered with Police Station City Chakwal.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were allowed post-arrest bail on 28th April, 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal. They moved an application on 17-7-2006 for exemption of, their appearance from the Court through their counsel which was dismissed vide the impugned order, dated 22-7-2006 which is liable to be set aside.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has no objection for restoration of their original bail, subject to their undertaking that they will appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and shall not cause any hurdle and delay in the trial.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. As the petitioners were not summoned by the trial Court after submission of the challan, they have themselves opted to appear and as they informed their counsel for their inability to attend the Court on the next date of hearing, they signed the application for exemption of their appearance- before the Court. The said application was not allowed by the trial Court. They were under genuine impression that their application for exemption would be allowed, therefore, they did not appear on the said date before the Court. The trial Court ought to have issued notice to them for their appearance but instead cancelled the bail. The petitioners have undertaken before this Court today that they would appear before the trial Court on the next date of hearing and shall also appear thereafter too till the conclusion of the trial. 5-A. In view of the above, the learned counsel appearing- on behalf of the complainant has no objection on acceptance of this petition. In the' circumstances, this petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 22-7-2006 is set aside. They are directed to appear before the trial Court for a date in the first week of October, which has already been fixed by the trial Court. H.B.T./M-52/L Order accordingly.