PCRLJ 1994

1994 P Cr (PLP)

and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
1993-December-19
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1994 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members N/A
Parties and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 147/148/149/435/324

Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)-- Bail

Sessions Court had rejected the bail application of the accused on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as the case was exclusively triable by the Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975

View of the Sessions Court was correct and was not shown to be erroneous

Bail application in the circumstances was not pressed and was dismissed as such.

Judgment & Decree

Criminal Bail Application No.1076 of 1993, decided on 19th December, 1993.

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 147/148/149/435/324

Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)-- Bail

Sessions Court had rejected the bail application of the accused on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as the case was exclusively triable by the Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975

View of the Sessions Court was correct and was not shown to be erroneous

Bail application in the circumstances was not pressed and was dismissed as such. Syed Shoib Ahmed Bukhari for Applicants. Fareed Ahmed Dayo for the State. This bail application was moved on behalf of the applicant Kaleem Ahmed alias Hakeem Ahmed son of Naseem Ahmed and Muhammad Nafees son of Muhammad Rafique who are detained in F.I.R. Crime No.215/93 for having committed offences under section 147, 148, 149, 435, P.P.C. read with section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and 324, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, registered at Police Station Ibrahim Hyderi. A bail application was filed before the trial Court/Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, East but the same was rejected on the ground that the trial Court lacks jurisdiction in this matter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Special Court Suppression of Terrorist Activities. The trial Judge while referring to section 4 of the S.TA. Act, 1975 and clause "C" of the, schedule appended thereto, came to the conclusion that the offence under sections 302 and 307 now re-numbered as 324, P.P.C. coupled with the offence punishable under the Arms Ordinance, 1965, if committed in the course of same transaction or in addition to or in combination with such offences, all become scheduled offences by virtue of section 4 of the said Ad and, therefore, the Court of Sessions will have no jurisdiction in the matter. The learned counsel for the applicant was unable to point out as to how the view taken by the trial Court was erroneous. The learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East has rightly come to the conclusion I that it has no jurisdiction in this matter. Faced with this position, the learned counsel for the applicant did not wish to press this application any more. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed as not pressed. N.H.Q./K-356/K Petition dismissed.