1989 PLP 4084 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4084 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4084 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4084 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4084 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ghulam Sarwar Chaudhry for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497/498‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Bail, pre‑arrest‑‑Jurisdiction‑‑High Court and Court of Session have concurrent jurisdiction‑‑Directions to approach Court of Session are given and normally accused are supposed to approach Court of first instance but m cases where propriety demands, application for bail could be adjudicated by High Court. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 497/498‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused was declared innocent and case against him was also got cancelled by Investigating Officer‑‑Case of accused falling within ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C., interim pre‑arrest bail allowed to accused was confirmed. Nur Muhammad Paris for the State. Bashir A. Mujahid for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Nur Muhammad Paris for the State. Bashir A. Mujahid for the Complainant. A case was registered against the petitioner under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, on the statement of Mst. Kausar Parveen. The petitioner had applied for pre‑arrest bail and he was admitted to interim pre‑arrest bail but on the date of hearing an application was put before my brother Abdul Waheed, J, seeking withdrawal of the petition on the ground that the Police have cancelled the case, and he does not apprehend any arrest. Thereafter the complainant lo4ged a complaint in the Court of Session and the learned Additional Sessions Judge who was entrusted with the complaint after recording preliminary evidence, has issued non‑bailable warrants of arrest of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner seeks pre‑arrest bail in the complaint now for the offences regarding which the police have already after investigation got the case cancelled. The A.S.I. who is in attendance has supported the above facts.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant has also not denied the same.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has already been held innocent by the Investigating Agency and the case was also got cancelled, a case for further enquiry is clearly made out.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail and has submitted that as the warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner, he should have approached the Court of Additional Sessions Judge who had issued the warrants of arrest. He has contended that if the petitioner had any apprehension that he will not be allowed to approach the Court of Session, for seeking pre‑arrest bail, he can be granted interim relief.
6. For the purposes of pre‑arrest bail the High Court and the Court of Session have concurrent jurisdiction. Directions to approach the Court of Session are given and normally the petitioners are supposed to approach the Court of first instance. But they, are cases like the present one where the propriety is that such an application be a indicated by this Court. In view of the fact that the petitioner was declared innocent and the case against him was also got cancelled by the investigating Officer, his case falls within the ambit of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The interim pre‑arrest bail allowed to the petitioner vide order, dated 24‑9‑1983 is confirmed. M.Y.H./M‑1531/L Bail confirmed.