1993 PLP 65 (SCMR)
KHAN MUHAMMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1993 PLP 65 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Lone and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | KHAN MUHAMMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 65 (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 1993 PLP 65 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Lone and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 65 (SCMR) (KHAN MUHAMMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mubashir Latif Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 24th March, 1992.
- Ch. Muhammad Ikram, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
- 2. It appears from the record that a case under section 295‑A, P.P.C. was registered with police, City Dera Ghazi Khan on the written orders passed by District Magistrate, Dera Ghazi Khan on the application presented to him by complainant Allah Wasaya to the effect that through wrong translation of Holy Qur'an in Saraiki language, petitioner Khan Muhammad had outraged religious feelings of Muslim Ummah. During investigation second petitioner Rafiq Ahmed has also been joined as co‑accused and against both of them offences mentioned are 295‑A, B and C., P.P.C. Trial Court of Additional Sessions Judge‑II has rejected bail application on merits vide order dated 30‑1‑1992. After rejection of bail, petitioners approached High Court but the High Court has not disposed of application on merits but has sent it back to the trial Court for disposal as stated above, because during the hearing of the bail application, learned Additional Advocate‑General had pointed out that challan was being submitted on the following day. In the circumstances, High Court deemed it proper not to express any opinion on merits of the case and directed trial Court as mentioned in the first paragraph of this order.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court Bench at Multan dated 26‑2‑1992 passed in Cr. Misc. No.161‑B of 1992). ‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.295‑A, 295‑B & 295‑C‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Contention, that order of the High Court directing Trial Court to decide the case before the specified date failing which to release the accused on bail amounted to withholding of bail for a specified period, had considerable merit‑‑‑High Court should have disposed of the bail application one way or the: other‑‑‑High Court's order being not on merits was set aside and the bail application was remanded to High Court for disposal on merits. Ch. Muhammad Ikram, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑Petitioners before us seek leave to appeal against order dated 26‑2‑1992 of Multan Bench of Lahore High Court, whereby their bail application is disposed of by directing trial Court to conclude the trial before 27‑4‑1992, failing which the trial Court shall release petitioners on bail.
2. It appears from the record that a case under section 295‑A, P.P.C. was registered with police, City Dera Ghazi Khan on the written orders passed by District Magistrate, Dera Ghazi Khan on the application presented to him by complainant Allah Wasaya to the effect that through wrong translation of Holy Qur'an in Saraiki language, petitioner Khan Muhammad had outraged religious feelings of Muslim Ummah. During investigation second petitioner Rafiq Ahmed has also been joined as co‑accused and against both of them offences mentioned are 295‑A, B and C., P.P.C. Trial Court of Additional Sessions Judge‑II has rejected bail application on merits vide order dated 30‑1‑1992. After rejection of bail, petitioners approached High Court but the High Court has not disposed of application on merits but has sent it back to the trial Court for disposal as stated above, because during the hearing of the bail application, learned Additional Advocate‑General had pointed out that challan was being submitted on the following day. In the circumstances, High Court deemed it proper not to express any opinion on merits of the case and directed trial Court as mentioned in the first paragraph of this order.
3. It is submitted before us by the learned counsel for the petitioners that directing the trial Court to decide the case before 27‑4‑1992, failing which it shall release the petitioners on bail, amounts to withholding of bail for specified period which is a penalty uncalled for particularly, when there is a direction that petitioners would be released on bail if trial is not concluded by then. We find considerable merit in the contention of the learned counsel. High Court should have disposed of bail application on merits one way or the other. Since there is no order on merits on the bail application from the High Court, we set aside order dated 26‑2‑1992 passed by the High Court and remand bail application for hearing and disposal on merits by the High Court within shortest possible time. N.H.Q./K‑201/S Case remanded.