2013 PLP 1600 (YLR)
ABDUL HAMEED — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 1600 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Shahid Hameed Dar, J |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMEED — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 1600 (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 2013 PLP 1600 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Shahid Hameed Dar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 1600 (YLR) (ABDUL HAMEED — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Farhan Ali Shah for Petitioner.
- Mian Muhammad Saeed for Respondent No.2 with Respondent No.2 in person.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 497(5), 498 & 345
Pre-arrest bail, recalling of
Pre-arrest bail granted on basis of compromise
Terms of compromise not complied with
Effect
According to terms of the compromise between the parties, accused was required to pay the agreed amount to the complainant within five months of the bail granting order
Accused did not pay the agreed amount despite repeated promises and appeared to be interested in per-petuating the agony of the complainant
No one could be allowed to make a mockery of the process of law and that of the courts
Order made by court of law had to be complied with in letter and spirit and no excuse could be allowed to eclipse or overawe the efficaciousness of the order
Accused had also moved an application before Justice of Peace for registration of case against complainant, which reflected on his unpreparedness to comply with the requirements of the compromise
Pre-arrest bail granted to accused was recalled in circumstances and directions were given to take him into custody and send him to judicial lockup to face trial. Mirza Abid Majeed, Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab for the State with Muhammad Javed A.S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.
The respondent-accused, Sh.Abdul Samad was granted bail before arrest by this court vide order dated 19-5-2011, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.5085-B-2011, for the solitary reason that compromise had been effected between the parties, in line of which he was required to defray each penny of the 'worked out' amount to the complainant-petitioner within next five months from the date of the above said bail granting order. Due to apathetic attitude of the respondent-accused, the petitioner filed the instant cancellation petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. on 20-10-2011 which could not be decided due to repeated promises made by the respondent-accused to satisfy the claim of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-accused, in all fairness believes that the matter between the parties could still be amicably settled within spirit of the bail granting order but, the respondent-accused appears to be interested more in perpetuating the agony of the petitioner rather than showing sincerity and respect to the said order, which had been passed with the consent of the parties. No one can be allowed to make a mockery of the process of law and that of the courts. An order made by a court of law has to be complied with in letter and spirit and no excuse can be allowed to eclipse or overawe the efficaciousness of the said order. The attention of this court has been drawn to an order, passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Lahore, on an application under section 22-A, 22-B Cr.P.C. moved by the respondent-accused for registration of a case against the petitioner which also reflects on the preparedness of the respondent-accused to comply with the requirement of the above said order of this court.
3. By being nonchalant and having shown a little sincerity in complying with the aforesaid direction/order, the respondent-accused has disentitled himself to continuously harvest the fruit of the said order. No other option is left but to allow this petition and recall the above said bail granting order. The respondent-accused be taken into custody and sent to judicial lockup as an under-trial prisoner, so as to face the trial.
4. Before parting with this order, the learned trial Court is directed to accelerate the proceedings of the trial and ensure its conclusion, under intimation to this court, within five months from today.
5. A copy of this order be transmitted to the learned trial Court for information and compliance. MWA/A-139/L Bail recalled.