1987 PLP 1356 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SALEEM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1356 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SALEEM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1356 (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 1987 PLP 1356 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1356 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SALEEM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Qadir, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th April, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 14‑2‑1987 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.458‑B of 1987). ‑‑‑S. 498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 379‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑Order of High Court refusing to cancel bail of respondents, impugned‑‑Plea that observations made by High Court and Sessions Court were likely to affect trial, not sustained‑‑Said observations being of ad hoc nature and relevant only in context of bail application, were directed to be disregarded by trial Court‑‑No case having been made out for interference by Supreme Court, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order dated 14‑2‑1987 of Lahore High Court whereby it declined to cancel the bail granted to respondents Nos. 2 to 5 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad in a case registered under section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The allegations against the said respondents were that they had committed theft of Kinoo plants which the petitioner had planted in an area of about six Acres.
2. After hearing the learned counsel we do not think that any case for interference by this Court with the order of the High Court has been made out. The grievance of the petitioner is that the High Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge have made certain observations in their orders which are likely to affect the trial. In this regard we may mention that the observations recorded by the High Court and the Additional Sessions Judge are only of an ad hoc nature and were relevant only in the context of the bail application. They should be entirely disregarded by the trial Court which should decide the case before it entirely on the basis of the evidence led at the trial. With these observations we dismiss this petition. M.I. /M‑108/S Order accordingly.