2002 PLP 1876 (SCMR)
RAZZAQ AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1876 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | RAZZAQ AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1876 (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 2002 PLP 1876 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1876 (SCMR) (RAZZAQ AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Nazim, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 5th April, 2002.
- Masood Sadiq Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for the State.
- Ghulam Nabi Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Complainant,
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 21‑6‑1996 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2904‑B of 2001). ‑‑‑‑S.497(5)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 452, 148 & ,149‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑‑Trial Court allowed the bail on the ground that name of the accused was not mentioned in the F.I.R.; accused was behind the bars and supplementary statement made by the complainant was inadmissible‑‑‑High Court cancelled the bail‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑While granting bail, the Trial Court did not correctly follow the principles regarding grant of bail in a case falling in the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with the well‑reasoned discretionary order of the High Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Masood Sadiq Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for the State. Ghulam Nabi Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Complainant,
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Daska vide order dated 17‑3‑2001, in a case registered through F.I.R. No. 24 of 2001 under sections 324/452/148/149, P.P.C. The occurrence took place at night According to the complainant the assailants had muffled their faces. Therefore, he did not mention the name of any person but in his statements trade after the recording of F.I.R. he named the present petitioner who had caused injury to Muhammad Siddique whose kidney was damaged. The learned Additional Session Judge, granted bail on the ground that in the F.I.R. name of the petitioner had not been mentioned and that he was behind the bar and that supplementary statement made by the complainant seemed t be inadmissible.
2. Learned Judge of the High Court on the application trade by the complainant cancelled the said bail granted to the petitioner through the impugned judgment dated 21‑6‑2001 against which leave is sought.
3. We find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while granting bail did not correctly follow the principles laid down by superior Courts regarding grant of bail in a case falling in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. No. ground has been made out to interfere with the well reasoned discretionary order of the High Court.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. Q.M.H./M.A.K./R‑45/S Petition dismissed.