1989 PLP 1502 (SCMR)
THE STATE‑‑Petitioner Versus AFTAB GUL Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1502 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | THE STATE‑‑Petitioner Versus AFTAB GUL Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1502 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1502 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1502 (SCMR) (THE STATE‑‑Petitioner Versus AFTAB GUL Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Maqbool Elahi Malik, Advocate‑General and Muhammad Akhtar, Additional Advocate‑General instructed by Abdul Aasim Jaffery, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioner.
- Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 29th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 25th January, 1989 of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.4348‑B of 1988 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.4349‑B of 1988). (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑5.497(5)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑ Contention that accused being fugitive from law was not entitled to discretionary relief of bail before arrest was of no avail‑‑Accused having been convicted in that regard by a Military Court and his sentence having been remitted, he could not be vexed mice for the same default of non‑appearance in Court. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Findings of High Court that all conditions of S.497(2), Cr.P.C. stood satisfied‑‑Accused would be admitted to bail as a matter of right and not in the exercise of discretion‑‑Bail in circumstances, could not be withheld unless and until the prosecution itself took the position that there was no possibility of arrest of accused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAUL ZULLAH, J.‑‑After hearing the learned counsel at length on the two points urged in support of these petitions for cancellation of bail, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The argument that the respondent was fugitive from law and hence not entitled to discretionary relief of bail before arrest, is of no avail in this case as A the respondent having been convicted in that regard by a Military Court his sentence has been remitted. He cannot, in the circumstances be vexed twice for the same default of non‑appearance in Court. The second argument for denying the relief to him is that no mala fides of the arresting agency having been shown, anticipatory bail could not be granted. It is based on the fact that the challan having been submitted, it will be the Court concerned and not the police, who would direct arrest with non‑bailable warrants or otherwise, for appearance in Court. And that the police role is practically over There is no force in this submission either. The findings by the High Court are such that all the conditions of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. stand satisfied in this case. It is not only a finding by the police that benefits the accused under that provision; the finding of the Court also produces the same B effect; namely, that the accused would then be admitted to bail as a matter of right and not in the exercise of discretion. That being so, bail in the circumstances of this case could not be withheld unless and until the State itself took the position that there is no possibility of his arrest in the case.. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused. M.A.K./S‑286/5 Leave refused.