2012 PLP 138 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus NAZAR KHAN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 138 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus NAZAR KHAN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 138 (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 2012 PLP 138 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 138 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus NAZAR KHAN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Naveed Inayat Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 17th August, 2011.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 4-7-2011 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous 7368-B of 2011).
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/324/337-F(ii)/ 337-A(i)/34
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Qatl-e-amd, attempt to Qatl-e-amd, other hurts and Shajjah-e-Khafifa
Trial near completion
Only role attributed to accused was that of raising "lalkara" and due to delay in conclusion of trial High Court released the accused on bail
Complainant sought cancellation of bail on the ground that trial was at final stage and High Court should not have released the accused on bail
Delay of more than six years in conclusion of trial was a tenable ground which prevailed with High Court
Plea raised by complainant was the rule of propriety rather than a legal bar
Each case had its own distinct facts particularly in cases of bail
Discretion exercised by High Court in granting bail to accused was not arbitrary or against settled law
Supreme Court declined to interfere in the bail allowed to accused by High Court
Leave to appeal was refused. Rehmatullah v. State 2011 SCMR 1332; Muhammad Sadik v. State 1980 SCMR 203; Shahadat Ali v. Mubarik Shah PLD 1986 SC 347 and Muhammad Siddiqui v. State PLD 1994 SC 93 ref. Mazhar Sher Awan, Additional P.-G. and Riaz, S.-I. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner/complainant seeks cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No. 1 in the case registered vide F.I.R. No. 238 dated 9-4-2005 under sections 302, 324, 337F(i) and 337A(i), P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C. at Police Station City Raiwind, Lahore. Bail has been allowed by the learned High Court vide the impugned judgment inter cilia on the ground that the only role attributed to the respondent was having raised a 'lalkara' and that despite a lapse of more than six years, the trial has not concluded.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent's earlier bail application had been dismissed on merits vide the order dated 8-2-2007 and he could not have given a fresh petition on merits and the only ground which the court ought to have considered, was the statutory period. He added that the learned Court also did not appreciate that the case before the trial Court was at final stages; that almost the entire prosecution evidence had been recorded and it was not a proper stage to allow bail to the respondent. In support of the submissions made, learned counsel relied on Rehmatullah v. State (2011 SCMR 1332), Muhammad Sadik v. State (1980 SCMR 203), Shahadat Ali v. Mubarik Shah (PLD 1986 SC 347) and Muhammad Siddique v. State (PLD 1994 SC 93).
3. Learned Additional Prosecutor-General supported the petition, as according to him, the trial was almost at the verge of conclusion and the learned High Court could not have allowed bail to the respondent.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Law Officer at some length, we find that admittedly the only role attributed to the respondent was that of raising 'lalkara'. The delay of more than six years in conclusion of trial was a tenable ground which prevailed with the learned High Court. So far as the argument of learned counsel that since the trial was at final stages, the court ought not to have released the respondent at bail is concerned, the principle which underpins this argument is the rule of propriety rather than a legal bar. Each case has its own distinct facts particularly in cases of bail. The discretion exercised by learned High Court in granting bail to the respondent have not been found by us, for afore-referred reasons, to be arbitrary or against the law declared. That being so, we do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. M.H./M-82/SC Petition dismissed.