2004 PLP 1068 (SCMR)
SHAUKAT ALI alias SHOKA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1068 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmad Khan and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | SHAUKAT ALI alias SHOKA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1068 (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 2004 PLP 1068 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmad Khan and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1068 (SCMR) (SHAUKAT ALI alias SHOKA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Afzal Sandhu, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 25th November, 2003.
- Muhammad Arif Ch. Advocated Supreme Court and Ch. Talib Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Complainant.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 14-7-2003 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2224-B of 2003).
S.497(1), third proviso
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 392, 411 & 412
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Hardened and desperate criminal
Habitual offender-- Accused was involved in seven criminal cases including murder cases and was a desperate and hardened criminal and also remained fugitive from law in the same cases
Although the accused was a councillor of his Illaqa but he depended on ransom money for his living and had made lives of many others miserable
Recovery of cash amount was also effected from him
Accused failed to point out any legal infirmity in the order of High Court refusing bail to the accused, warranting-interference by Supreme Court
Bail was declined by Supreme Court
Leave to' appeal was refused. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. A.-G., Punjab for the State. Muhammad Arif Ch. Advocated Supreme Court and Ch. Talib Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
TANVIR AHMAD KHAN, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 14-7-2003 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore refused to grant bail to the petitioner.
2. We need not to give facts of the case as the same have been given in detail in the impugned order.
3. We have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the F.I.R. was got registered on 2-1-2002 at Police Station, Niddoki, District Narowal, under sections 392, 411 and 412, P.P.C. The petitioner remained absconder and according to the learned counsel he was apprehended in March, 2003. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, after thrashing the entire record has exercised his discretion in dismissing the plea of the petitioner. It would be appropriate to reproduce the concluding paragraph of the impugned order which is in the following terms:
"Whereas; according to the learned counsel for the complainant side, the petitioner was involved in seven criminal cases including murder cases. That he was a desperate and hardened criminal and also remained fugitive in the same cases. That although he was a councilor of his Ilaqa but he depends on ransom for his living and has made the lives of many others miserable. That a recovery of cash amount has also been effected from him. Although, it is said by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cash amount did not belong to the complainant. An affidavit has also been submitted to state that the petitioner was a desperate person. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that a prima facie case has been made against the petitioner and that allowing him bail would mean he shall go on committing such-like offences because he was a hardened criminal." Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any legal infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference.
4. Resultantly for what has been stated above, the instant petition is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. M. H./S-25/S Petition dismissed.