1975 PLP 137 (SCMR)
Rana PHOOL MUHAMMAD KHAN AND OTHERS — Petitioners-Appellants Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1975 PLP 137 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Rana PHOOL MUHAMMAD KHAN AND OTHERS — Petitioners-Appellants Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Bail |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 137 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Bail as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 137 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 PLP 137 (SCMR) (Rana PHOOL MUHAMMAD KHAN AND OTHERS — Petitioners-Appellants Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners-Appellants.
- Mahmood Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record with Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner-Appellant.
- Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioners-Appellants.
- Ghulam Sarwar Chaudhury, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood Akhtar Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners-Appellants.
- Ghulam Sarwar Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court with Talus Farooq Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Kh. Wali Muhammad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners-Appellants.
- Date of hearing : 11th November 1974.
- Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners‑Appellants.
- Mahmood Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record with Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on-Record for Petitioner‑Appellant.
- Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioners‑Appellants.
- Ghulam Sarwar Chaudhury, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood Akhtar Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners‑Appellants.
- Ghulam Sarwar Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court with Talus Farooq Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Kh. Wali Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners‑Appellants.
- Abdul Sattar Najam, Assistant Advocate‑General and Muhammad Yaman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by 1jaz Ail, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State (in all the Cases).
- After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners‑appellants, we converted the petitions into appeals. The learned Assistant Advocate-?General appeared on behalf of the State to oppose the appeals.
- From among the appellants, three namely Rana Phool Mohammad Khan, Sardar Mohammad Ashiq Dogar and Malik Mohammad Ali, are Members of the Provincial Assembly. Three others are Advocates and two are Police Officers. Learned counsel for the petitioners‑appellants laid great stress on the delay of nearly two months in the registration of the crime which, according to them, was sufficient to demonstrate victimization of the petitioners‑appellants due to political rivalry between the two local groups.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 5th November 1974, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1128-B, 1132-B, 2196-B and 1130-B of 1974). --Interim bail granted by High Court and order granting bail coming up for confirmation after almost seven months-No complaint during the period that accused in any way abused privilege of bail-Order granting bail eminently merited confirmation and High Court's refusal to confirm bail, held, not justified in circumstance. Petition No. 360 of 1974 in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1974 Petition No. 361 of 1974 in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1974 Petition No. 362 of 1974 in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1974 Petition No. 363 of 1974 in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1974 Petition No. 364 of 1974 in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1974 Abdul Sattar Najam, Assistant Advocate-General and Muhammad Yaman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by 1jaz Ail, Advocate-on-Record for the State (in all the Cases).
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.
‑Twenty‑one petitioners‑appellants in these five cases seek special leave to appeal from a consolidated order of a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated the 5th November, 1974 refusing to confirm interim bail granted to them by an earlier order of the Chief Justice dated 12th April, 1974. The petitioners are accused in a case under sec?tions 39.5, 397, 436, 406, 452, 148 and 149, P. P. C. registered by the Saddar Police Station, Kasur under first information report No. 52, dated 10th April, 1974. The crime was reported by Ch. Muhammad Yaqub Maan, Member of Punjab Assembly, in a complaint addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Kasur on 18th March, 1974 regarding an incident that occurred in his house on the night between 15th and 16th February, 1974. A large body of persons, led by Riasat Ali, Rana Phool Mohammad Khan, M.P.A., Mian Mohammad Aslam, Sardar Mohammad Ashiq Dogar, M.P.A., and Rana Iqbal, S.H.O. is said to have raided complainant's house and forcibly carried away his household belonging including T.V. set, refrigerator, electric fans, radios, jewellery and articles of dowry of complainant's daughter. Rs. 20,000 in cash, several heads of cattle including buffaloes, a tractor, besides 2,000 maunds of wheat, 200 maunds of tobacco and 150 maunds of rice. Learned Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court granted interim bail to all the petitioners‑appellants by the order dated 12th April, 1974 mainly because he was impressed that F. I. R. was lodged after inordinate delay and the parties belonged to rival political groups. The case came for con?firmation of interim bail before another learned Judge who by an order dated 5th November, 1974 that is to say, after a lapse of about 7 months, declined to confirm the bail. According to the learned Judge the long delay in F. I. R. is "not fatal" as plausible explanation is given. The learned Judge also took notice of certain press‑reports regarding the incident des?cribing it as "one of the most notorius case." After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners‑appellants, we converted the petitions into appeals. The learned Assistant Advocate-?General appeared on behalf of the State to oppose the appeals. From among the appellants, three namely Rana Phool Mohammad Khan, Sardar Mohammad Ashiq Dogar and Malik Mohammad Ali, are Members of the Provincial Assembly. Three others are Advocates and two are Police Officers. Learned counsel for the petitioners‑appellants laid great stress on the delay of nearly two months in the registration of the crime which, according to them, was sufficient to demonstrate victimization of the petitioners‑appellants due to political rivalry between the two local groups. In view of the fact that the petitioners‑appellants had been allowed to remain on bail for almost seven months, and there is no complaint that they have, in any manner, abused the privilege of bail, it was appropriate to confirm the order granting interim bail to them, rather than vacate it. The factors that appealed to learned Chief Justice in granting interim bail to the petitioners‑appellants are sound principles of law governing bail. The order passed by him eminently merited confirmation, particularly for the reason that the investigation of the case is not yet complete, and so far n additional incriminating evidence has been revealed against the petitioners appellants, in spite of the fact that the police investigation has not, in any way, been hampered by the fact that the petitioners‑appellants were on bail. We, therefore, direct that the petitioners‑appellants remain on bail on their furnishing two sureties, each, in the sum of Rs. 10,000, with personal bonds in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Deputy Regist?rar of this Court. The petitioners‑appellants shall join police investigation as and when called upon to do so, and any failure in this regard will entitle the prosecution to apply to this Court for cancellation of bail. This order will also not bar the cancellation of bail if deemed fit and proper on any of the petitioners‑appellants being committed to the Sessions Court for trial. Appeal accepted.