1995SCMR860 (PLP)
FAZAL AHMED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995SCMR860 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah C.J., Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | FAZAL AHMED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR860 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR860 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah C.J., Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR860 (PLP) (FAZAL AHMED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, Advocate instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 29th March, 1994.
- 2. We have heard Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, Advocate. The question whether an undertrial prisoner is entitled to bail or not is in the discretionary jurisdiction of the Courts bellow. The learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court after giving proper reasons have found that the petitioner is not entitled to bail, on account of the serious injuries inflicted by him on the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to show that the finding of the learned Court just mentioned, suffered from any legal infirmity. No ground for interference, with such an order is, therefore, warranted. However, we feel that this is a case in which the trial of the accused should be expedited and we direct accordingly.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 12‑2‑1994 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in Crl. Misc. Petition No. 270 of 1993). ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 324/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Bail!‑‑‑Finding of the High Court as well as of the Sessions Court that the accused was not entitled to bail on account of the serious injuries inflicted by him sin the complainant was based upon proper reasons and was not shown to have suffered from any legal infirmity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 324/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Bail!‑‑‑Finding of the High Court as well as of the Sessions Court that the accused was not entitled to bail on account of the serious injuries inflicted by him sin the complainant was based upon proper reasons and was not shown to have suffered from any legal infirmity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, Advocate instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 29th March, 1994. NASIM HASAN SHAH, CJ.‑‑‑The petitioner alongwith another (Sajid son of Fazal Ahmed) is being tried for inflicting Churri blows to Fazalur Rehman complainant under section 324/34, P.P.C. Both had applied for bail during the pendency of the trial which was granted by a learned Magistrate on 16‑9‑1993. However, on the application of the complainant the bail of the petitioner (Fazal Ahmad) was cancelled while that of his co‑accused namely Sajid was maintained. Fazal Ahmad thereupon moved the High Court for reversal of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge but the High Court vide its well‑reasoned order dated 12‑2‑1994 held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail and dismissed his application. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. We have heard Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, Advocate. The question whether an undertrial prisoner is entitled to bail or not is in the discretionary jurisdiction of the Courts bellow. The learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court after giving proper reasons have found that the petitioner is not entitled to bail, on account of the serious injuries inflicted by him on the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to show that the finding of the learned Court just mentioned, suffered from any legal infirmity. No ground for interference, with such an order is, therefore, warranted. However, we feel that this is a case in which the trial of the accused should be expedited and we direct accordingly.
3. This petition with the above observations stands dismissed. N.H.Q./F‑328/S Leave refused.