1990 PLP 823 (SCMR)
Ch. IJAZ AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 823 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Ch. IJAZ AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 823 (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 1990 PLP 823 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 823 (SCMR) (Ch. IJAZ AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑‑S.498‑‑‑Constitution pf Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail, grant of‑‑ Leave to appeal‑‑‑Request of petitioner for pre‑arrest bail was rejected by High Court as petitioner did not appear personally on date of hearing‑‑‑Supreme Court granted bail accepting petitioner's explanation that he was absent due to indisposition.
- M. Farani, Bar‑at‑Law, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Akhtar, Addl. A.‑G. and Abdus Samad Hashmi; Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
- Notice was issued to the Advocate‑General, Punjab. Additional Advocate‑General is present. He vehemently opposed the pre‑arrest bail on the ground that conduct of the petitioner is such that he does not deserve special concession of anticipatory bail at this stage. He further submitted that a case has been registered against the petitioner under the Arms Ordinance. A klashnikov and a 7 mm rifle were recovered from the Dera of the petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Muhammad Akhtar, Addl. A.‑G. and Abdus Samad Hashmi; Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 26‑6‑1989 whereby the request for pre‑arrest bail was rejected. The petitioner did not personally appear on the said date. Notice was issued to the Advocate‑General, Punjab. Additional Advocate‑General is present. He vehemently opposed the pre‑arrest bail on the ground that conduct of the petitioner is such that he does not deserve special concession of anticipatory bail at this stage. He further submitted that a case has been registered against the petitioner under the Arms Ordinance. A klashnikov and a 7 mm rifle were recovered from the Dera of the petitioner. Mr. Farani, on the other hand, submitted that it is a clear case of political rivalry and the petitioner is being made victim because he is now a full fledged member of the political party which is not in the good books of the Provincial Government. It is argued that a day prior to the registration of the case against the petitioner, the petitioner had lodged a complaint against S.I. Parvez Saeed and it is this officer who is entrusted with the investigation against the petitioner. Mr. Farani, therefore, alleges mala fide against the prosecution. I find that the petitioner did not turn up before the High Court. His absence is explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was absent due to indisposition. The petitioner is admitted to ad interim, pre‑arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., City. Main petition to be listed in the next session at Lahore during vacation. H.B.T./I‑115/S Ad interim bail granted.