1998 PLP 535 (SCMR)
Sh. ZAHEER AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus QAIMAT ZAMIN and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 535 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ |
| Parties | Sh. ZAHEER AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus QAIMAT ZAMIN and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 535 (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 1998 PLP 535 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 535 (SCMR) (Sh. ZAHEER AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus QAIMAT ZAMIN and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Nawaz Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th December, 1994.
- M. Nawaz Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 25‑10‑1994 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Cr.M./BA No. 811//94'), ‑‑‑‑S. 497 (1)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/324‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Cancellation of bail‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the period, for which the case against the accused remained pending in the forum under Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Regulation, could be counted towards the period mentioned in third proviso to S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. for the purpose of grant of bail to the accused.
Judgment & Decree
M. Nawaz Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th December, 1994. MUKHTAR AHMED JUNAJO, J.-,-Leave to appeal is sought against bail granted order, dated 25-10-1994 passed by a learned Single Judge. in Chamber of the Peshawar High Court. Respondent Qaimat Zamin is facing trial in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, District Swat for having given chhuri blows to complainant Ihtesham Zaheer and his father Zaheer Ahmed on 17-9-1991 at 8.00 a.m. in premises of the Sessions Court, Swat. Ihtesham Zaheer died as result of the injuries caused to him. Respondent Qaimat Zamin was caught at the spot alongwith the chhuri used by him. Motive for the offence was dispute over some property in respect of which Shariat Case No.72/2 of 1991 was pending in the said Court. The respondent moved the Assistant Commissioner, Swat, for bail but his prayer was rejected on 4-7-1992. He then moved Additional Commissioner, Malakand Division who refused bail under an order, dated 14-1-1993. The respondent moved the Home Secretary, Government of N.W.F.P., who dismissed the bail petition on 25-10-1993. The respondent again moved S.D.M. Swat for bail on medical grounds but his prayer was rejected on 30-5-1994. He moved fresh application for bail in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Swat, who rejected the same on 31-7-1994.'Thereafter, the respondent invoked jurisdiction of the High Court and his application for bail was granted under the impugned order on 25-10-1994 by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court on delay ground. Hence this petition. . Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the condition of third proviso below subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C., was not fulfilled, because in the first instance the case against the respondent was pending in a Court of Malakand Division and that the respondent had not remained in custody for the statutory period after receipt of case against him in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Swat. Prior to transfer of the said case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, it was subject to PATA Regulation which has been held unconstitutional by this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted to consider, whether the period for which the case against the respondent remained pending in the forum under N.H.Q./Z-193/S Leave granted