1996SCMR1114 (PLP)
SARFRAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996SCMR1114 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ |
| Parties | SARFRAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996SCMR1114 (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 1996SCMR1114 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996SCMR1114 (PLP) (SARFRAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain Naqshbandi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 19th December, 1994.
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain Naqshbandi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 28‑8‑1994 passed by the Lahore High Court in Crl. Misc. No. 3444/B/94). ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/324/148/149‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑High Court while refusing bail to accused did not consider as to how the case which prima facie appeared to be triable by an ordinary Court was transferred to Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, and also that the accused had been found innocent in successive police investigation‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to further consider the said facts and the accused in the meantime was admitted to interim bail. Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.
The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the order of a learned Judge in chambers of the Lahore High Court dated 28-8-1994 wherein the learned Judge refused to admit the petitioner to bail in a case registered against him alongwith several others under sections 302/324/148/149 of the P.P.C.
2. In seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was initially 'granted bah in the case by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, by his order dated 21-2-1994 on the ground that the petitioner was found innocent in the successive police investigating besides the fact that the injury from the fire-arm attributed to the petitioner was suffered by one of the P. Ws. which was on the non-vital part of the body. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the offence with which the petitioner was charged was trible by an ordinary Court but curiously enough this case was taken up by Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Faisalabad, on the application of the complainant and bail granted to the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad was cancelled by order dated 6-6-1994. The learned Judge in Chambers refused to grant bail to the petitioner when he approached the Lahore High Court.
3. Notice was issued to the State in the above case and the learned counsel for the State was unable to satisfy us as to how this case which prima facie appears to be triable by an ordinary Court was transferred to the Court of Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Faisalabad. The learned Judge in Chambers while refusing to admit the petitioner to bail did not consider the above circumstance besides the fact that the petitioner was found innocent in successive police investigations conducted in the case. These facts require further consideration and we accordingly grant leave -to appeal. In the meantime the petitioner is admitted to interim bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./S-923/S Leave granted.