YLR 2009

2009 PLP 1818 (YLR)

FAZAL-UR-REHMAN — Petitioner Versus KHALID and 2 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Peshawar
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Cancellation Petition No. 149 of 2009, decided on 8th June, 2009.
Honorable Judges
Syed Yahya Zahid Gilani, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2009 PLP 1818 (YLR)
Forum / Court Peshawar
Bench Members Syed Yahya Zahid Gilani, J
Parties FAZAL-UR-REHMAN — Petitioner Versus KHALID and 2 others — Respondents
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1818 (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 2009 PLP 1818 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Syed Yahya Zahid Gilani, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1818 (YLR) (FAZAL-UR-REHMAN — Petitioner Versus KHALID and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Allah Nawaz Khan for Appellant.
  • Date of hearing: 8th June, 2009.

Headnotes / Summary

S.497(5)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/34

Bail, cancellation of

Petition for

Petitioner/complainant. who was father of the deceased was aggrieved of the concurrent orders of the Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge whereby respondents/accused persons who were nominated by the petitioner in his statement under S.164, Cr. P. C., were released without giving the complainant notice and affording him opportunity of being heard; and Addl. Sessions Judge did not cancel their bail despite said glaring legal lacuna

Since the introduction and implementation of Islamic Concept of dispensation of justice in criminal cases, wherein hurt or Qatle-e-Amd was involved, the right of compensation being a personal right of the victim or descendants of a deceased victim, the superior courts were of the consistent view that they had a vested right to be heard before an order favourable to an accused was passed

In the present case, both the courts below had ignored the established right of legal heirs of the deceased to be heard

Impugned bail orders were set aside and bail granted to accused was recalled for having been granted without notice to complainant party. Muhammad Ashraf v. Duarriyaman and another PLD 1993 Pesh. 151 and Muhammad Shafiq v. Muhammad Mir Khan 2001 PCr.LJ 968 ref. Fazal-ur-Rehman Bakhsh for the State. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in Person.

Judgment & Decree

SYED YAHYA ZAHID GILANI, J.

Fazlur Rehman complainant-petitioner is the father of Sanaullah whose Qatl-e-Amd has been booked in F.I.R. No.37 dated 4-2-2009 of Police Station University, D.I.Khan, under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. He is aggrieved by the order of Mr. Irshad Ahmad Khan, Judicial Magistrate-I, D.I. Khan dated 31-3-2009 and Syed Zamurd Shah, Additional Sessions Judge-I, D.I. Khan dated 6-5-2009 because the earlier released accused-respondents Nos.1 and 2 nominated by him in his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. without giving him notice and affording him opportunity of being heard and the latter did not cancel their bail in spite of this glaring legal lacuna.

2. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for complainant-petitioner and the State Counsel. Accused-respondents were heard in person because they stated that they do not intend to engage counsel.

3. Since the introduction and implementation of Islamic concept of dispensation of Justice in criminal cases, wherein hurt Qatl-e-Amd is involved, the right of compensation being a personal right of the victim or descendants of deceased victim, the superior Courts are of the consistent view that they have a vested right to be heard before an order favour also to an accused is passed. The theory was originally propounded by Mr. Justice Muhammad Bashir Khan Jehangiri, in the case of Muhammad Ashraf v. Duarriyaman and another (PLD 1993 Peshawar 151) and subsequently this view was adhered to in different judgments, like in the case of Muhammad Shafiq v. Muhammad Mir Khan (2001 PCr.LJ 968 Peshawar) wherein the short but leading judgment delivered by this Court is reproduced below:-- "Cancellation of bail granted to respondents, namely, Muhammad Mir Khan, Shafiq-ur-Rehman and Sher Zaman in case F.I.R. No.29, dated 12-2-2003 of Police Station Naurang under section 302/34, P.P.C, is sought mainly on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge, Lakki has granted bail to the respondents without notice to the complainant. Perusal of the record does support the grievance of the petitioner. It is by now well-settled that in murder/hurt cases notice is to be given to the aggrieved/complainant party even at bail stage. Long ago in case of Abdur Rahim v. Khan Faraz and others dated 6-4-2002 the bail granted by the same Sessions Judge, Lakki was cancelled on the ground that notice was not given to the complainant and injured party. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge is still following his own notion and has turned blind eye to the settled proposition of law. The bail granted to the respondents is hereby recalled and the bail application submitted by them is entrusted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lakki Marwat, where the learned counsel for both the parties undertake to appear on 25-10-2003 and after hearing either side should decide the case in accordance with law. The application stands accepted." 3-A. It is noted with concern that some times ignoring the established principles of law creates unnecessary hardship for the litigants and enlarges their agony which the Courts are bound to minimize and eliminate. In the instant case, both the Courts below have ignored the established right of legal heirs of the deceased to be heard. All the Judicial Officers should be careful and improve their legal knowledge on basic and established principles of law which are applicable in their daily routine work.

4. Without touching merits of the case, this petition is accepted, the impugned bail orders are set aside and the bail granted to accused-respondents Nos.1 and 2 is recalled for having been granted without notice to complainant party. They are taken into custody and directed to be produced before learned Judicial Magistrate-I, D.I. Khan on 11-6-2009 where the bail application of accused-respondents shall be deemed to be pending. The learned Magistrate shall, adding father of the deceased as respondent, serve a notice on him and after extending him opportunity of being heard, shall decide the bail application within four days.

5. The Additional Registrar of this Bench is directed to circulate copy of this judgment to Sessions Judges, D.I. Khan, Bannu, Lakki Marwat and Tank for onward circulation to all the Judicial Officers working under their control, for guidance. H.B.T./122/P Petition accepted.