1990 PLP 421 (SCMR)
QAIM DIN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SULEMAN and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 421 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah arid Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | QAIM DIN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SULEMAN and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V or 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 421 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V or 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 421 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah arid Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 421 (SCMR) (QAIM DIN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SULEMAN and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Aziz Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 26th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 4th February, 1989 of the Lahore High Court, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.172-B of 1989).
Ss.497 & 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302
Accused were found innocent and were got discharged
Petitioner filed direct complaint against accused and non-bailable warrants were issued against them
High Court allowed pre-arrest bail, mainly on the ground that the Trial Court issued non bailable warrants without properly examining the police record/findings, which went in favour of accused
Leave to appeal granted to examine whether the High Court itself properly examined the record and findings by the police; the findings by the police would not be superseded by the findings of the Trial Court for the purposes of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C. and the other similar purposes; in my case it was lawful and proper to allow pre-arrest bail to accused without the, having surrendered before the Trial Court and having made application for bail in the first instance before that Court and whether the condition of arrest being mala fide was satisfied.
S.497
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Leave to appeal against order of grant of bail was granted to the petitioner-complainant against the accused
After the announcement of order but before its dictation petitioner pointed out that he would be satisfied if leave was granted against one accused only
Said accused was present in the Court and accepted the notice
On concession made by petitioner leave was granted only against that accused. Respondent No.l in person. Nemo for khe Remiaining Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
S.497
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Leave to appeal against order of grant of bail was granted to the petitioner-complainant against the accused
After the announcement of order but before its dictation petitioner pointed out that he would be satisfied if leave was granted against one accused only
Said accused was present in the Court and accepted the notice
On concession made by petitioner leave was granted only against that accused. Abdul Aziz Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Respondent No.l in person. Nemo for khe Remiaining Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th March, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the complainant side in a murder case, against the grant of bail before arrest to respondents Nos.l and 2, by the High Court. During the investigation of the case the police having found the said respondents as innocent, they were got discharged. A direct complaint having been filed from the petitioner's side the said accused were summoned and were directed to appear in pursuance of non-bailable warrants issued against them. Notwithstanding the same the High Court allowed pre-arrest bail, mainly, on the ground that the learned trial Judge issued non-bailable warrants without properly examining the police record/findings which go in favour of the said respondents. After hearing the learned counsel we consider it a fit case, inter alia, to examine one, whether, the High Court itself properly examined the record and findings by the police; whether, the findings by the police would not be superseded by the findings of the trial Court for the purposes of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. and the other similar purposes; whether, in any case it was lawful and proper to allow pre-arrest bail to the respondents without they having surrendered before the trial Court and having made application for bail in the first instance before that Court, and whether, the condition of arrest being mala fide was satisfied. After the announcement of the order but before its dictation the learned counsel pointed out that Suleman respondent remained present in Court during the hearing of the petition. He also pointed out that the petitioner would be satisfied if leave to appeal is granted against said Suleman only. Suleman accordingly was asked; whether, he would accept notice. He answered in the affirmative. Accordingly on the concession made from (he petitioner's side by his learned counsel, leave to appeal is granted only against Suleman. The case is~ complete. It shall be heard at an early date. M.A.K./Q-26/S Leave granted.