1999 PLP 1724 (YLR)
Dr. SAFDAR ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FALAK NIAZ and another‑‑‑Respondent,
| Citation | 1999 PLP 1724 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J |
| Parties | Dr. SAFDAR ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FALAK NIAZ and another‑‑‑Respondent, |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 1724 (YLR)?
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 PLP 1724 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 1724 (YLR) (Dr. SAFDAR ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FALAK NIAZ and another‑‑‑Respondent,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khalid Wiqar Chamkani for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497(5)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34‑‑‑Cancellation of pre‑arrest bail‑‑ Impugned order allowing bail before arrest to accused having been based on valid reasons was neither preverse nor arbitrary and did not call for any interference by High Court‑‑ Very strong and exceptional grounds were required for cancellation of bail granted by the Court of competent jurisdiction which were lacking in the case‑‑‑Provisions of S.497(5), Cr.P.C., being not punitive in nature petition for cancellation of bail was consequently dismissed in limine.
Judgment & Decree
Respondent No. l stands charged for ineffective firing at the complainant, Vide F.I.R. No.609, dated 27‑12‑1998 registered, under section 324/34, P.P.C., at Police Station Mathra, District Peshawar.
2. The Judge, Special Court/Additional Sessions Judge (III), Peshawar (Mr. Muhammad Azim Khan Afridi) admitted the petitioner to pre‑arrest bail Vide his order recorded on 18‑2‑1999.
3. Hence this bail cancellation application.
4. I have gone through the contents of the F.I.R., as well as the order of the Judge, Special Court. Since the impugned judgment is neither perverse nor arbitrary and the Judge has given valid reasons for his conclusion in his judgment recorded on 18‑2‑1999, therefore, I would not like to interfere with the same.
5. The last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Judge, Special Court was influenced because the respondent‑accused is working as the Personal Assistant to the Provincial Minister for Food is rubbish. Judges who work under the administrative control of the High Courts cannot be influenced by such appointments.
6. Moreover, very strong and exceptional grounds are required for the cancellation of bail granted by the Court of competent jurisdiction. It is because the provisions of section 497(5), Cr.P.C., are not punitive and, thus, there is no legal compulsion for the cancellation of bail granted even in cases punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment for ten years.
7. It is now well‑settled that an accused is not to be deprived of the benefit of bail whenever reasonable doubt arises about his participation in crime or about the truth/probability of the prosecution case. In such a situation it would be better to keep him on bail than in the jail during the period of the trial.
8. In the facts and circumstances of this case the petition for cancellation of bail is without any substance and is accordingly dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./325/P Petition dismissed.