1987 PLP 1879 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1879 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1879 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1879 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1879 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Riyasat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Syed Abul Aasam Jafari, Advocate-on-Record and Wahid-ud-Din Virk, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
- S.M. Zubair, A.A.-G. for Respondent No.4.
- Date of hearing: 24th May, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 25-1-1987 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2867/B of 1986).
Ss. 307, 109, 148 & 149--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 497 & 498--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Bail, cancellation of--High Court while dismissing petitioner's application for cancellation of bail of accused observing that it was highly improper for Sessions Judge to have admitted the respondents to bail after their bail application had been dismissed on merits by High Court- Interference with order of Sessions Judge, however, was declined by High Court for reasons that the case was at evidence stage and likely to conclude shortly and that the respondents had undertaken to make earnest efforts for quick trial and not to impede or thwart the trial in any manner--Petitioner stating that both the said expectations had not materialised and that the conduct of respondents was calculated to delay the completion of trial on one pretext or the other--Case, held, was not fit one for interference with the order of High Court--Grounds upon which High Court had refused to cancel bail of respondents having proved illusory, the petitioner might move High Court again for cancellation of bail granted to respondents and it would be for High Court to consider whether in circumstances now prevailing it would like to reconsider its earlier order--Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 25-1-1987 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the application of the petitioner for cancellation of bail granted by the Sessions Judge, Sargodha to respondents Nos. 1, 2, and 3 who were involved in a case registered under section 307, read with sections 109 and 149, and section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
2. The learned Single Judge in the High Court who dismissed the application of the petitioner observed that it was highly improbable for the learned Sessions Judge to have admitted the respondents to bail after their bail application had been dismissed on merits by the High Court. He however, declined to interfere with the order fort two reasons: namely:- (i) The case was at evidence stage and was likely to conclude shortly, and (ii) the respondents had undertaken that they would make earnest efforts to see that the trial comes to an end quickly and that they would not impede or thwart the trial in any manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that both these expectations have not materialised. The learned Magistrate who was seized of the case has since been transferred and his successor has not been appointed. Consequently, the hope that the trial would conclude shortly has disappeared. Apart from that, the conduct of the respondents is such that it was calculated to delay the completion of the trial on one pretext or the other.
3. We do not think this is a fit case for interference by this Court with the order of the learned Single Judge. Since the grounds upon which the learned Judge had refused to cancel the bail of the respondents have proved illusory the petitioner may move the High Court again for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents. It will be of course for the High Court to consider whether in the circumstances now prevailing it would like to reconsider its earlier order. This petition is accordingly dismissed. S.Q. /M-165/S Petition dismissed.