1998 P Cr (PLP)
DIYAR KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SAID KHAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J |
| Parties | DIYAR KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SAID KHAN‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 P Cr (PLP) (DIYAR KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SAID KHAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khan Ghawas Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
.‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302/324/34‑‑‑Bail, cancellation of
Reasons adduced by Sessions Judge for granting bail to accused were justified as same were also supported even by prosecution version, especially the version given in F. I. R. ‑‑‑Sessions Judge had given cogent/valid reason, for extending concession of bail to accused and bail granting order was neither arbitrary nor perverse‑‑‑Such order could not be interfered with because when bail was granted by competent Court same could not be easily recalled as a matter of routine, in the absence of solid reasons showing that same was either obtained through misrepresentation/suppression of facts or that concession of bail was misused to hamper/obstruct course of fair investigation‑‑‑‑Petition for cancellation of bail having no substance, was rejected in circumstances. Muhammad Yaqoob v. Akbar Ali and others 1996 PCr.LJ 1371; Sabir Ali v. The State and another 1996 PCr.LJ 2050 and Gulzar Ahmad v. State 1997 MLD 1606 ref. Khawaja Azhar Rashid, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Khawaja Azhar Rashid, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. Respondent No.1 stands charged for having committed an offence punishable under section 302/324/34, P.P.C. vide F. I. R. No. 343 dated 11‑9‑1997 lodged in Police Station, Rustam, District Mardan.
2. After having failed to procure bail from the Judicial Magistrate Mardan, respondent No.1 approached the Sessions Judge, Mardan who by his order, dated 17‑10‑1997 admitted him to bail. Hence this bail cancellation application.
3. Mr. Khan Ghawas, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner and Khawaja Azhar Rashid, Assistant Advocate‑General for the State present and heard. Record of the case perused.
4. After having heard the learned counsel for petitioner/complainant and the Assistant Advocate‑General and having perused the record of the case, I am of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant is without any substance. The reasons advanced by the Sessions Judge, Mardan for releasing respondent Said Khan accused on bail, are justified as the same are also supported even by the Prosecution version, especially the version contained in the F.I.R. In my opinion the Sessions Judge has given cogent/valid reasons for extending the concession of bail to the respondent‑accused. The impugned order is neither arbitrary nor perverse and, therefore, there is no need to interfere with the same.
5. It may be remarked here that when bail is granted by a competent Court it cannot be easily recalled i.e., as a matter of routine, in the absence of solid reasons showing that the same was either obtained through misrepresentation/suppression of, facts or that the concession of bail was being misused to hamper/obstruct the course of fair investigation. Reliance may be placed on the following case law:‑‑ (1) Muhammad Yaqoob v. Akbar Ali and others 1996 PCr.LJ 1371 (Peshawar). (2) Sabir Ali v. State and another 1996 PCr.LJ 2050 (D.B.) (Multan Bench). (3) Gulzar Ahmad v. State 1997 MLD 1606.
6. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the bail cancellation petition has no substance and the same is accordingly rejected. H.B.T./2258/P Petition rejected.