1994 PLP 658 (SCMR)
EJAZ AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 658 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | EJAZ AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 658 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 658 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 658 (SCMR) (EJAZ AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Abdul Wahid, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and MA. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 24th November, 1993.
- S.D. Qureshi, Advocate for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court dated 15‑6‑1993 passed in Cr.M.No. 2232‑B/1993). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑Interim bail had been allowed to the accused earlier on the ground that not a single witness had been examined during the last six months, and still no progress in the case had been made‑‑‑Position remaining the same and no progress in the case having been made‑‑‑Petition was converted into appeal and the interim bail granted to accused was confirmed accordingly. S.D. Qureshi, Advocate for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑Interim bail had been allowed to the accused earlier on the ground that not a single witness had been examined during the last six months, and still no progress in the case had been made‑‑‑Position remaining the same and no progress in the case having been made‑‑‑Petition was converted into appeal and the interim bail granted to accused was confirmed accordingly. Muhammad Abdul Wahid, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and MA. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. S.D. Qureshi, Advocate for the State. Date of hearing: 24th November, 1993. SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court whereby petition for bail was dismissed in limine.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner by order dated 18,8‑1993 notice was issued to the State. It was taken note of the fact that a period of eight months had elapsed, but no proceedings in the matter have taken place. On 21‑8‑1993 the following order was passed:‑
"Not a single witness has been examined during the last six months. Admitted to interim bail in the sum of Rupees twenty‑five thousand with two sureties in like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court."
3. Both the learned counsel are present and the statement that so far no progress has been made in the case has not been controverted. In the circumstances, while converting the petition into an appeal and allowing it, we confirm the interim order of bail passed earlier. N.H.Q./E‑40/S Interim bail confirmed,