1990 PLP 1135 (SCMR)
THE STATE through A‑G. N.‑W.F.P. and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN TAREEN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1135 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J |
| Parties | THE STATE through A‑G. N.‑W.F.P. and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN TAREEN‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1135 (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 1990 PLP 1135 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1135 (SCMR) (THE STATE through A‑G. N.‑W.F.P. and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN TAREEN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian M. Ajmal, Additional Advocate‑General N.‑W.F.P. and Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Petition No. 60‑P of 1989).
- M.B. Zaman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Ijaz Ali, Advocate- on‑Record and Akhunzada Behrawar Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Petition No. 143‑R of 1989). ,
- Raja M. Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Sardar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in both Petitions).
- Date of hearing: 26th February, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad, dated 4‑9‑1989 in Cr. M. No. 531 of 1989). ‑‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted with direction to trial Court not to delay the trial of accused in any manner who would be at liberty to cancel the bail if accused at any stage absented himself from trial Court.
Judgment & Decree
RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.‑‑‑This order will dispose of Cr. P. L. A. No.60‑P of 1989 filed by the State and Cr.P.LA. No. 143‑R of 1989 filed by Sher Muhammad Khan, seeking leave to appeal against the order of a learned single Judge of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Circuit, dated 4‑9‑1989 releasing Muhammad Ashraf Khan Tareen respondent on bail.
2. On 16‑2‑1989 at about 9 p.m. Muhammad Ashraf Khan Tareen, the present respondent, accompanied by late Raja Amanullah Khan, visited the residence of the deceased Mazhar Sher Khan and were seated by Taus Khan H.C. in a room adjoining to the drawing room. According to the report made by Taus Khan, the deceased also came to the room after a little while and he had hardly sat down there when both the accused, namely, the present respondent and the late Raja Amanullah Khan, started abusing him. In the wake of this, the respondent fired at the deceased allegedly at the instance of late Raja Amanullah Khan, which hit the deceased. The complainant tried to catch hold of the respondent, at which the respondent is alleged to have fired another shot which hit Raja Amanullah Khan. Thereafter, both the respondent and late Raja Amanullah Khan left the house in the car in which they had come. Mazhar Sher Khan was removed to the hospital immediately, where he was examined by. Dr. Shehryar vide his report dated 16‑2‑1989, but later succumbed to his injuries at 3‑30 a.m. on the following morning. Raja Amanullah Khan was also carried to the same hospital by the respondent and was examined by the same Medical Officer Dr. Shehryar, who found fire‑arm injuries on his person as per his report dated 16‑2‑1989. While still in the hospital, the respondent was arrested the same day as is evident from the police Daily Diary dated 16‑2‑1989.
3. After a number of unsuccessful attempts made by the respondent to secure bail, he was finally enlarged on bail by the Peshawar High Court on medical grounds on 4‑9‑1989. Both the State and the father of the deceased challenged this order through the present petitions.
4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent and the State.
5. Without going on the record as having given any finding in the matter or as having expressed ourselves in any particular way, we grant leave to appeal in this case. However, we understand that the trial has been set down for 26‑3‑1990. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent has on a number of occasions attempted to delay the proceedings by filing transfer applications and that in the future as well he may attempt to delay the case by similar methods. We would not like the trial to be delayed in any manner. Should the respondent at any stage absent himself from the trial Court, the trial Judge shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
6. We would order that these appeals should now be listed after 26‑3‑1990. N.H.O./S‑522/5 Leave granted.