1985 PLP 559 (SCMR)
KIFAYATULLAH alias KIFAYAT KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 559 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Nasim Hasan Shah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | KIFAYATULLAH alias KIFAYAT KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 559 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 559 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Nasim Hasan Shah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 559 (SCMR) (KIFAYATULLAH alias KIFAYAT KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdur Rehman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (absent) .
- Date of hearing: 12th December, 1984.
- Abdur Rehman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (absent) .
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 21-11-1.984 of the Peshawar High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 765 of 1984).
Art. 185(3)--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.497 & 498--High Court declining grant of bail with observation that matter may be reconsidered by trial Court in light of evidence produced--Order impugned with plea that offence bas cognizable by Special Court which had not yet been constituted in concerned district--Plea not having been pressed before High Court where it could have been dealt with more satisfactorily. leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HAS AN SHAH, J.‑‑ The main ground pressed before us in support of the plea for bail is that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is within the cognizance of the Special Court visualized by the provisions of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act but that no Special Court has yet been constituted in the District Dir. Hence, the observation made by the learned Judge of the High Court while dismissing the petitioner's application for bail that the trial Court may reconsider the question of bail in the light of the evidence produced in the case is not of much practical utility. We observe that the above ground was not pressed before the learned Judge of the High Court who could have gone into the question and ascertained whether or not any Special Court has been constituted in the District Dir and if not why not and in the light of all the information acquired in this regard dealt with the plea of the petitioner more satisfactorily. The petitioner may, however, even now if so advised, move the High Court for consideration of this point. This application, with the above observations, is dismissed. M I. Petition dismissed.