1999 PLP 2635 (YLR)
STATE through Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P., Peshawar‑‑‑Applicant Versus AKHTAR MUNIR‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 2635 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Jawaid Naivaz Khan Gandapur, J |
| Parties | STATE through Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P., Peshawar‑‑‑Applicant Versus AKHTAR MUNIR‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 2635 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 2635 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Jawaid Naivaz Khan Gandapur, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 2635 (YLR) (STATE through Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P., Peshawar‑‑‑Applicant Versus AKHTAR MUNIR‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Imtiaz Ali, Law Officer for Petitioner.
- Khalid Khan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 19th April, 1999.
- STATE through Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P., Peshawar‑‑‑Applicant
- 4. The Advocate‑General has now filed this bail cancellation application saying that the Additional Sessions Judge (II), Charsadda was not well within his right to have extended the benefit of bail to the respondent‑accused and that the same be, therefore, recalled.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art. 3/4‑‑ Cancellation of bail‑‑‑Provisions of S.497(5), Cr.P.C. being not punitive in nature, strong and exceptional grounds were required for cancellation of bail granted to accused by a Court of competent jurisdiction‑‑‑Accused also was not to be deprived of the benefit of bail where reasonable doubt had arisen about his participation in the crime or about the truth/probability of the prosecution case‑‑‑In such a situation it was better to keep the accused on bail than in jail during the period of trial‑‑‑Personal liberty granted to accused by a competent Court through grant of bail could not be snatched away from him unless it was absolutely necessary to do so under the law‑‑‑Having judged the present petition for cancellation of bail in the light of the said principles, it had no substance and the same was dismissed accordingly. Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State NLR 1996 (Criminal) Supreme Court 188 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Mr. Imtiaz Ali, Law Officer for the State and Mr. Khalid Khan learned counsel for the accused‑respondent present and heard. Record of the case perused.
2. In this case the recovery of 15 grams of contraband heroin was effected from the possession of the accused-respondent on 2‑2‑1998 at 1700 hours and a case under section 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 was registered against him at Police Station, Prang, Charsadda, vide: F.I.R. No.86, dated 2‑2‑1998.
3. The respondent‑accused was released on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge (II), Charsadda (Mr. Hussain Bahadur Khan) by his order recorded on 18‑2‑1998.
4. The Advocate‑General has now filed this bail cancellation application saying that the Additional Sessions Judge (II), Charsadda was not well within his right to have extended the benefit of bail to the respondent‑accused and that the same be, therefore, recalled.
5. It may be stated at the very out‑set that strong and exceptional grounds area required for the cancellation of bail granted a Court of competent jurisdiction because the provisions of section 497(5), Cr.P.C. are not at all punitive. Resultantly there is no legal compulsion even for the cancellation of the bail granted in cases which are punishable with death/life imprisonment for ten years.
6. Additionally the accused is not to be deprived of the benefit of bail whenever reasonable doubt arises about his participation in the crime or about the truth/probability of the prosecution's case. In such a situation, it would be better to keep him on bail than in the Jail during the period of the trial and the personal liberty granted to him by a Court of competent jurisdiction, through grant of bail, should not be snatched away from him unless it becomes absolutely necessary to do so under law. In this respect I am supported by the following case:‑‑ NLR 1996 (Criminal) Supreme Court 188, Syed Amanullah Shah v The State. Wherein it was held (b) S. 497(5)‑‑‑Very strong and exceptional grounds would be required for cancelling bail granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction as provisions of section 497(5) are no punitive. There is no legal compulsion f6r cancelling bail granted in cases punishable with death life imprisonment or imprisonment for ten years. (c) Section 497/498‑‑‑Accused should not be deprived of benefit of bail whenever reasonable doubt arises about participation of an accused person in crime or about truth/probability of prosecution case and evidence proposed to be produced in support of charge. In such a situation, it would be better to keep an accused person on bail than in jail during trial. (e) Section 497/498‑‑‑Personal liberty granted to an accused by a Court of competent jurisdiction through grant of bail, should not be snatched away from him unless it becomes necessary to deprive him of his liberty under law.
10. In the circumstances, I am of the view that this bail cancellation application is without any substance and the same is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./398/P Petition dismissed.