1999 P Cr (PLP)
MIR ZAKAM and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1999 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Ajmal |
| Parties | MIR ZAKAM and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Ajmal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 P Cr (PLP) (MIR ZAKAM and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S: Zafar Abbas Zaidi and Pir Liaqat Shah for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 12th May, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Trial of the case was in progress in which certain witnesses had already been examined‑‑‑Superior Courts, ordinarily, did not decide the bail application on merits in a murder case fixed for hearing and the matter was often left to the discretion of Trial Court‑‑ High Court, therefore, did not dilate upon the merits of the case, lest the same should prejudice the judicial mind of the Trial Court‑‑‑Bail application was, consequently, dismissed with the direction to Trial Court to conclude the trial in the case within two months. Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 1989 SC 585 ref. S. Saeed Hassan Sherazi, A.A.‑G. for the State. Dost Muhammad Khan for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.‑‑‑ After rejection of their bail application from the Court of Special Judge, Bannu, vide his order, dated 10‑10‑1996, the petitioners have approached this Court for the same relief.
2. According to the F. I. R. the complainant on the eventful day alongwith his father and cousin, after making purchases from the Bannu City, left for Paindakhel in Datsun. When they deboarded at Paindakhel Adda and were going towards their home, and reached near the lands of Muhammad Ali Khan, the petitioners, armed with kalashnikovs appeared on the scene. Petitioner No. 1 commanded the co‑accused to kill. Whereupon the accused/petitioners opened indiscriminate firing with which his father was hit and died at the spot. However, the complainant and his cousin escaped unhurt. The assailants fled away from the scene of occurrence. The motive for the alleged offence is stated to be a previous blood feud enmity.
3. After their arrest, the petitioners applied for their bail to the Court of Special Judge, Bannu but their application was turned down vide his order cited in para. 1 above. Hence the petition in hand for the same relief.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record of the case with their able assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the parties stated that the trial is in progress wherein certain witnesses have already been examined, we as such refrain to dilate upon the merits of the case lest it may not prejudice the judicial mind of the trial Court. Reliance is made on case Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another reported PLD 1989 SC 585 wherein it is held:‑‑ Practice of the superior Courts is that when a murder case is fixed for hearing, ordinarily, the bail applications are not decided on merits and the matter is often left to the discretion of the trial Judge and this practice is directly relatable to the 'question of prejudice."
6. In view of the above dictum laid down by the apex Court, we dismiss this application and direct the trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of two months positively. The office is directed to send the record of the case to the trial Court forthwith. N.H.Q./226/P Application dismissed.