1993 P Cr (PLP)
JAVAID IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1993 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | JAVAID IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 P Cr (PLP) (JAVAID IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- NA. Butt for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (Y-X. of 1965), S.13
Accused after admittance to bail, had disappeared and had been fugitive from justice for a period of abut five years--There was every likelihood that accused would repeat his past performance and would opt to absent himself again from proceedings, once he was enlarged on bail
Conduct of accused showed that he did not deserve to be extended the concession of bail
Bail was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
NA. Butt for Petitioner. Shahbaz Saeed Sajid for the State. Javaid. Iqbal has involvement in a case under section 13, Arms Ordinance XX, 1965 registered at Police Station Shalimar, Lahore, vide F.I.R. No.230 dated 4-8-1987, and has applied for bail.
2. The main contention of the learned counsel is that it is a bailable offence, and even though presently it is a scheduled offence, it did not fall in that category, at the time of the incident, having occurred on 4-8-1987, when he had allegedly been found to be carrying a .12 bore gun on his shoulder and holding a sten gun in his hand, at Chowk Shawala, in the area of Police Station. Shalimar, Lahore.
3. I am, however, of the opinion that the legal proposition, of the offence being bailable or not, would have no relevance, since the accused, after admittance to bail, had disappeared and has been fugitive from justice for a period of about five years. He did not appear in the proceedings of the trial on 13-10-1987, after having made an application on the preceding day that he was suffering from dysentery. It would thus be a travesty of facts to say that absence of the accused was an unintentional one. The Court had no other option, except to cancel his bail and forfeit his surety bond, when he had chosen to disappear and was not participating in the proceedings of trial.
4. He was, however, admitted to bail before arrest, when he made a move for it, on 9-6-1992, but such concession, being extraordinary, which in the circumstances of the case could not be conceded to the accused, was withdrawn on 5-8-1992. Subsequently an application was made for admittance to bail after arrest by the accused, and the prayer was turned down on 19-8-1992 by the learned Judge Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Lahore.
5. I would endorse the observations made by the learned Judge of the lower Court that there is every likelihood that accused would repeat his past A performance and would opt to absent himself again from the proceedings, once he is enlarged on bail, and further that in view of his conduct he does not observe to be extended the concession in question. This petition thus stands dismissed. A.A./J-32/L Bail refused.