1982 PLP 227 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1982 PLP 227 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | -----Ss. 498 & 498-A-Bail-Pre-arrest bail and bail after arrest- Based on entirely different principles--Rejection of application for pre-arrest bail, held, does not have any bearing on bail after arrest.bail |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Hussain and Shafi-ur-Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 227 (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 1982 PLP 227 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the -----Ss. 498 & 498-A-Bail-Pre-arrest bail and bail after arrest- Based on entirely different principles--Rejection of application for pre-arrest bail, held, does not have any bearing on bail after arrest.bail bench comprising: Mushtaq Hussain and Shafi-ur-Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 227 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 24th June 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the order dated 30-4-80 of the Lahore High Court passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 802/B/ 1980).
Ss. 498 & 498-A-Bail-Pre-arrest bail and bail after arrest- Based on entirely different principles--Rejection of application for pre-arrest bail, held, does not have any bearing on bail after arrest.[bail]
Judgment & Decree
2. The petitioner moved the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, for bail before arrest but the same was rejected on 27‑11‑
79. A similar application presented to the High Court was dismissed in limine on 9‑12‑79.
3. The petitioner was consequently arrested and he applied for bail after arrest alongwith some of his co‑accused. He was granted bail on the ground that though he is said to have been armed with a gun he has not used it and that only a lalkara has been attributed to it.
4. Bashir Ahmed moved the High Court for cancellation of the bail on the ground that Muhammad Hussain has not brought it to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge that pre‑arrest bail had been declined to him both by the High Court and the Sessions Court earlier.
5. The learned High Court cancelled the bail on 30‑4‑
80. Hence this petition.
6. The learned Judge of the High Court came to the conclusion that Muhammad Hussain had approached "the learned Sessions Judge with dirty bands and, therefore, succeeded in obtaining a discretionary relief". He held that it was not an inadvertent omission. His lordship came to the conclusion that "the bail is liable to cancellation on the short ground that the respondent obtained the discretionary relief by approaching the learned Sessions Court with dirty hands and such tactics must not only be depreciated but effectively discouraged".
7. He also was of the opinion that since evidence was yet to be recorded it would be premature to hold that the case of the respondent is not covered by the principle of vicarious liability.
8. The application for cancellation of bail was thus allowed.
9. It is no time for us to go into the merits of the case or to say anything with regard to the vicarious liability or otherwise of the petitioner.
10. When the petitioner applied to the learned Sessions Judge for bail after arrest he did not disclose that his application for bail before arrest was rejected. We can, however, not lose sight of the fact that pre‑arrest bail and bail after arrest are based on entirely different principles and the rejection of an application for the former does not have any bearing on the latter. We, therefore, do not see eye to eye with the learned Judge of the High Court on this matter and would accept this application and grant bail to Muhammad Hussain petitioner in the sum of Rs. 20,000, with two sureties in the same amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Faisalabad. Bail granted.