2017 PLP 1791 (MLD)
RAFIQ-UR-RAHMAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 1791 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar (D.I. Khan Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RAFIQ-UR-RAHMAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 1791 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 1791 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar (D.I. Khan Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 1791 (MLD) (RAFIQ-UR-RAHMAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Salim Marwat for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F
Court of Session had cancelled the bail granted to accused by the Magistrate
Order of cancellation of bail was passed in absence of accused and there was nothing on record to show that accused was ever summoned or his sureties were put on notice
Cancellation of bail by the court of session was not proper in the absence of accused
Order accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN, J.- Petitioner Rafiq-ur-Rehman was booked under Section 489-F, P.P.C. vide FIR No.374 dated 19.5.2016 of police station City, Tank. He applied for bail and his bail application was accepted by learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tank on 25.5.2016. Respondent No.2/complainant moved application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail. Vide order dated 30.6.2016, learned Sessions Judge, Tank accepted the bail cancellation application. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, present application has been submitted.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. Perusal of record reveals that impugned order dated 30.6.2016 of learned Sessions Judge, Tank was recorded in absence of accused-petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that accused was ever summoned or his sureties were put on notice.
4. Learned Sessions Judge, Tank was at fault to decide BCA in the absence of accused-petitioner, which is nullity in the eye of law, hence impugned order is set aside. Record of the case be sent back to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Tank with the direction to hear the BCA in the presence of accused-petitioner and then to decide it in accordance with law. Needless to say that the BCA shall be deemed to be pending before learned Sessions Judge, Tank. Accused/petitioner be also released in the manner while he will remain on bail till the decision by Sessions Judge, Tank in BCA, on the strength of bail bond already submitted pursuant to order dated 25.5.2016 of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate-I, Tank. This order is made by invoking provisions of Section 439, Cr.P.C., as the impugned order is incorrect, illegal and against administration of criminal justice. WA/106/P Order accordingly.