1995 PLP 1242 (SCMR)
MAHMOOD AHMAD and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1242 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Manzoor Hussain Sial and |
| Parties | MAHMOOD AHMAD and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1242 (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 1995 PLP 1242 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Manzoor Hussain Sial and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1242 (SCMR) (MAHMOOD AHMAD and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocates‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 11th january,1995.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 5‑12‑1994 in Cr. k4ise, No. 4201/B of 1994). ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/149/148‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Bail granted to accused by Trial Court had been cancelled by High Court‑‑‑Trial of accused had already commenced and two witnesses had been examined‑‑‑Consideration of question of bail by Supreme Court of such stage was not proper lest any observations made by it might influence the Trial Court one way or the other‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused accordingly‑‑High Court, however, while cancelling bail of accused, had expressed itself very strongly on certain aspect of the case without adding the usual caution about the observations being of tentative nature which could adversely affect the accused at the trial‑‑‑Trial Court was directed in the circumstances to take the High Court's observations entirely as of ad hoc nature relevant only for the purpose of disposal of the bail application. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-‑‑‑The petitioners are facing trial in the Court of the Sessions Judge at okara on charges under section 302 read with section 149, and Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code. They were granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground mainly that in the challan submitted by the prosecuting agency they had been placed in column No.2 and that no overt act had been attributed to them during the course of the occurrence. On an application moved by the complainant the High Court cancelled the bail granted to them by the learned trial Court. They seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The trial of the petitioners has already commenced and two witnesses have been examined. It will not be proper for us at this stage to consider the question of bail lest any observations made by us should influence the trial Court one way or the other.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that in his order the learned Single Judge who cancelled the bail has made observations which are likely to divert the course of justice. We have gone through the order and unfortunately we find substance in his assertion. The learned Judge has expressed himself very strongly on certain aspects of the case without adding the usual cautions that the observations he is recording are of tentative nature and are relevant only for the purpose of the disposal of the bail application. This omission on the part of the learned Judge can possibly adverse at the petitioners at the trial. In the circumstances, we direct the trial Court that it should take the observations of the learned Single Judge entirely as of ad hoc nature, relevant only for the purpose of the disposal of the bail application. It should not allow anything said in the order of the learned Judge to influence it while determining the question of guilt or innocence of the petitioner and that the decision on this question should be based wholly on the appreciation of the evidence led before it during the trial. With these observations leave is refused. N.H.Q./M‑2266/S Leave refused.