2005 PLP 1899 (SCMR)
SHAH NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1899 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sh. Riaz Ahmed C.J. Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ |
| Parties | SHAH NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1899 (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 2005 PLP 1899 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sh. Riaz Ahmed C.J. Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1899 (SCMR) (SHAH NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. A. Basit, Advocate Supreme Court and Ijaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing 17th April, 2003.
- Pervez Inayat Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.
- M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
- We have heard Dr. A. Basit, Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, Mr. Pervez Inayat Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for the complainant and Mr. M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for the State, and after considering the role attributed to petitioner, we would refrain from expressing any continents upon the merits of the case, lest the same may prejudice the case of either side during the trial. Suffice it to mention that learned Judge of the High Court was persuaded to cancel the bail allowed to the petitioner on the ground that the same Additional Sessions Judge had granted after arrest bail who had earlier declined to grant pre-arrest bail to petitioner. It is now well-settled that considerations for pre-arrest and post-arrest bail are totally different, therefore, in our view the learned Judge had fallen in error to cancel the bail allowed to petitioner by the same Additional Sessions Judge.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 7th of March, 2003 of the Lahore High Court in Cr. Misc. 7253/B-C of 2002).
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420/467/468/471
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
High Court had cancelled the bail allowed to the accused on the ground that the same Additional Sessions Judge had granted after arrest bail who had earlier declined to grant pre-arrest bail to him
Considerations for pre-arrest bail and post-arrest bail being totally different, High Court had wrongly cancelled the bail allowed to accused by the same Additional Sessions Judge
Accused according to F.I.R. was also defrauded
Section 467, P.P.C. did not appear to have been attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case
Other offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr. P.C.
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Pervez Inayat Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SH. RIAZ AHMED, C.J.
This petition for leave to appeal assails legality of the order, dated 7th of March, 2003 whereby a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court cancelled the bail allowed to petitioner Shah Nawaz by an Additional Sessions Judge in terms of order dated 19th of October, 2002 in case F.I.R. No.299 dated 26th of August, 2002 registered with Police Station Civil Lines, Gujranwala on charges under sections 420/467/468/471, Pakistan Penal Code. It is submitted that on 27th of August, 2002, petitioner was initially declined pre-arrest bail by an Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, and subsequently post-arrest bail was also refused on 23rd of September, 2002, and ultimately, on 19th of October, 2002, the same Additional Sessions Judge granted after arrest bail to petitioner, and the learned Judge of the High Court cancelled the same by means of order impugned herein. We have heard Dr. A. Basit, Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, Mr. Pervez Inayat Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for the complainant and Mr. M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for the State, and after considering the role attributed to petitioner, we would refrain from expressing any continents upon the merits of the case, lest the same may prejudice the case of either side during the trial. Suffice it to mention that learned Judge of the High Court was persuaded to cancel the bail allowed to the petitioner on the ground that the same Additional Sessions Judge had granted after arrest bail who had earlier declined to grant pre-arrest bail to petitioner. It is now well-settled that considerations for pre-arrest and post-arrest bail are totally different, therefore, in our view the learned Judge had fallen in error to cancel the bail allowed to petitioner by the same Additional Sessions Judge. As regards the facts of the case, perusal of F.I.R. shows that petitioner too was defrauded, we fail to understand as to how section 467, Pakistan Penal Code was attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case but as observed earlier, we would not like to touch the merits of the case because trial is yet to commence. It is submitted that challan has been submitted and the trial is likely to commence, as far as rest of the offences are concerned, obviously they do not fall within the prohibitory clause, therefore, by converting this petition into appeal, we allow the same with the consequence that interim bail allowed to the petitioner on 10th of April, 2003 is hereby confirmed, subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.five lacs with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the District and Sessions Judge, Gujranwala. N.H.Q./S-289/S Bail allowed.