1999 PLP 332 (YLR)
JEHAN ZEB‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 332 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J |
| Parties | JEHAN ZEB‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 332 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 332 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 332 (YLR) (JEHAN ZEB‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ishtiaq Ibrahim for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Tentative assessment of the available record did not reveal non -existence of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused had committed the offence with which he was charged‑‑‑Reasons given by the Sessions Court for not extending the benefit of bail to the accused were quite convincing and the discretion having been judiciously exercised by it, impugned order was neither perverse nor arbitrary and needed no interference by High Court‑‑‑Bail was declined to accused accordingly. Ijaz Ali Khan v. The State 1968 SCMR 1168 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Learned counsel for the petitioner present and heard at length. Record of the case perused carefully.
2. The petitioner stands charged for having committed an offence punishable under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 (Ordinance No.VI of 1979), Vide: F.I.R. No.400, dated 19‑7‑1998 registered at Police Station, Pishtakhara, District, Peshawar.
3. I have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. as well as the orders of the Judicial Magistrate (Syed Ahtesham Ali), dated 10‑12‑1998 and the Additional Sessions Judge (III), Peshawar, Mir Muhammad Azim Khan Afridi, dated 4‑1‑1999, carefully.
4. A tentative assessment of the available record has failed to persuade me to come to the conclusion that reasonable grounds do not exist for believing that the petitioner has committed the offence charged with, accordingly, I am of the considered view that the reasons given by the Additional Sessions Judge for not extending the benefit of bail to the petitioner are quite convincing. I do not, in the circumstances, find myself in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the discretion exercised by the Additional Sessions Judge was not judicious.
5. Since the impugned order is neither perverse nor arbitrary', therefore, I would not like to interfere with the same.
6. Reliance in this respect may be placed on case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, titled Ijaz Ali Khan v. The State and reported as 1968 SCMR 1168, wherein it was held:‑‑‑ "The petitioner who is charged with the offence of murder has been refused bail by the Courts below from which he now seeks leave to appeal. On examining the facts appearing in the order of the learned Judge in the High Court we are inclined to the view that the conditions laid down in section 497, Cr.P.C., for refusing bail to the petitioner were amply fulfilled in this case. The petition is dismissed."
7. This petition has no substance and is accordingly dismissed in limine. NA.Q./323/P Bail refused.