1996 PLP 1894 (MLD)
NAZAR MUHAMMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1996 PLP 1894 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ihsan‑ul‑haq Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | NAZAR MUHAMMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 1894 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 1894 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ihsan‑ul‑haq Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 1894 (MLD) (NAZAR MUHAMMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Zafar Hussain Shah for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 28th March, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.526, 439 & 497(5)‑‑‑Transfer of case exercising suo Motu powers‑‑ Sessions Judge in an application for cancellation of bail granted to accused after referring to the injuries observed that the bail grant order deserved serious arguments and adjourned the application to next date directing the accused to be taken into custody in the meanwhile‑‑‑Sessions Judge in passing the said order having not exercised his discretion in accordance with law, the same was suspended and since the accused had now genuine apprehension that they would not get justice from that Court, the application for cancellation of bail was withdrawn from the said Court in exercise of suo motu powers and made over to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge for disposal. Muhammad Sarwar Bhatti. A. A.‑G. for the State
Judgment & Decree
Syed Zafar Hussain Shah for Petitioners. Muhammad Sarwar Bhatti. A. A.‑G. for the State Date of hearing: 28th March, 1996. Record has been received
2. Respondent No.2 remained unserved. According to the A.S.I. he was snot available.
3. Learned A.A.‑G. very frankly submitted that it is very difficult to defend this order. In this view of the matter the impugned order is suspended. The result is that the bail grant order holds the field. The revision to come up for arguments on 22nd of April 1996.
4. The perusal of the record shows that the application for cancellation of the bail was filed on 8th of February 1996, notice was issued and record was requisitioned for 28th of February, 1996. The petitioners appeared but the record had not been received, therefore, the matter was adjourned to 19th of March, 1996. It was on this date that the learned Sessions Judge after referring to the injuries proceeded to observe that the ball grant order deserves serious arguments and adjourned the application to 14th of May, 1996, and in the meanwhile directed the petitioners to be taken into custody to face the trial of this application. It is clear from the file that the learned Sessions Judge did not exercise his jurisdiction in accordance with law and the petitioners now genuinely apprehended that they would not get justice from the said Court. In this view of the matter, in exercise of suo motu powers, the application for cancellation of bail titled. Liaquat Ali v. Muhammad Sharif etc, is withdrawn from the Court of Sessions Judge, Khanewal and is made over to Malik Azharul Haq, Additional Sessions Judge, Khanewal, who is directed to decide the application expeditiously in any case within 15 days. The petitioners shall appear before the transferee Court on 4‑4‑1996 while Saleem Ahmad, A.S.I. is directed to ensure that the complainant is served for 4‑4‑1996 for his appearance before the transferee'Court. The record to be transmitted today. N.H.Q./N‑19/L Case transferred