1994 PLP 999 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN alias MUHAMMADA ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 999 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Saleem Akhtar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN alias MUHAMMADA ‑‑‑ 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 1994 PLP 999 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 999 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Saleem Akhtar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 999 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN alias MUHAMMADA ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- RA. Awan, Advocate instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ejaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 8th January, 1994.
- 2. Mr. R.A. Awan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that effective firing was not attributed to him and that the High Court was in error in tatting him to be an absconder.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 24‑5‑1993 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 498‑B of 1993). ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Fact that the accused did not surrender though his close associates were charged for the crime alongwith him and he knew the allegations against him, had justified High Court without technical satisfaction of the requirements of a proclamation, to consider him a proclaimed offender for the purposes and in the matter of bail‑‑‑Discretion exercised by High Court in cancelling bail allowed to accused by Sessions Court did not call for interference by Supreme Court. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J: ‑‑The petitioner charged alongwith others of offence under section 302, P.P.C. seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 24‑5‑1993 whereby the bail granted to him by the Additional Sessions Judge was cancelled.
2. Mr. R.A. Awan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that effective firing was not attributed to him and that the High Court was in error in tatting him to be an absconder.
3. The reasons which prevailed with the High Court in cancelling the bail were the following two:‑‑ "(i) It appears that learned A.S.J. did not apply his mind and failed to take into account, that it was Muhammad Hussain alias Muhammada (respondent) who had grievance and motive for commission of the occurrence. (ii) Yet another aspect, which learned A.SJ. conveniently had foregone, was that Muhammad Hussain alias Muhammada (respondent) had been declared absconder prior to his arrest. He was arrested after having been declared absconder."
4. The learned counsel contended that there was no evidence or material to show that any proclamation had issued and the petitioner had in fact become absconder.
5. The fact that the petitioner did not surrender though his close associates were charged for the crime alongwith him and he was in the know of the allegations against him, justified the High Court, without technical satisfaction of the requirements of a proclamation, to consider him a proclaimed offender for the purposes of and in the matter of bail. The discretion exercised by the High Court does not call for our interference. Hence, leave to appeal is refused. N.H.Q./M‑1949/S Leave refused.