1996 PLP 1092 (SCMR)
JAMSHED ALI and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996 PLP 1092 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, C.J., Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and |
| Parties | JAMSHED ALI and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 1092 (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 1996 PLP 1092 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, C.J., Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 1092 (SCMR) (JAMSHED ALI and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 10th January, 1994.
- Raja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate for the State.
- I have considered this aspect of the matter carefully and dispassionately. The two petitioners, who were allegedly armed with carbine had opened fire on the deceased, who was sitting in the chamber of an Advocate in the Court premises and thus had caused his death. Both the petitioners were then caught red-handed at the spot alongwith their weapons of offence and were produced before the Court by P. W .6 and P. W .7, namely, S.I.Gul Fraz and.F.C. Abdul Khaliq, the Naib Court ----------- -in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the petitioners do not deserve to be released on bail even on the point of delay of two years in the disposal of their appeal. I, therefore, refuse to exercise my discretion to allow the concession of bail to the petitioners. "
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 11‑10‑1993 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 555/B of 1993). ‑‑‑‑S. 426(1‑A)(c)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑‑High Court in full consciousness of the provisions ‑of S. 426(1‑A)(c), Cr.P.C. had not found the accused entitled to the concession of bail in the peculiar circumstances of the case and directed "otherwise" by means of a well‑reasoned order‑‑‑Discretion was not exercised by High Court either arbitrarily or unreasonably‑‑‑Leave so appeal was refused in circumstances. Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate for the State.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.
The petitioners were convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. and sentenced inter alia to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 21-7-1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi. An appeal was preferred before the Lahore High Court against the conviction and sentence but the same has not been disposed of, although more than two years have passed since the appeal was preferred and it is still pending.
2. Accordingly a petition was moved under section 426(1-A) (0 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of the sentence but the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide order dated 11-10-1993. The reason for refusing the prayer for suspending the sentence was stated thus:-- "However, the delay of two years in the disposal of the appeal is a point worth consideration because the provisions of section 426(1-A) (c), Cr.P.C. envisages the concession of bail to the petitioners on this ground alone unless the Court otherwise directs. I have considered this aspect of the matter carefully and dispassionately. The two petitioners, who were allegedly armed with carbine had opened fire on the deceased, who was sitting in the chamber of an Advocate in the Court premises and thus had caused his death. Both the petitioners were then caught red-handed at the spot alongwith their weapons of offence and were produced before the Court by P. W .6 and P. W .7, namely, S.I.Gul Fraz and.F.C. Abdul Khaliq, the Naib Court
in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the petitioners do not deserve to be released on bail even on the point of delay of two years in the disposal of their appeal. I, therefore, refuse to exercise my discretion to allow the concession of bail to the petitioners. " Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. On 15-12-1993 a learned Judge of this Court was pleased to allow interim bail in chambers, to the petitioners principally on the ground that in spite of the appeal having been fixed repeatedly it has not been heard within the statutory period of two years.
4. Today, however, when the petition for leave came up for hearing before the' Court, learned counsel for both sides have stated that the appeal in the Lahore High Court is being fixed for hearing in the next few days. The basis on which the order of interim bail was made accordingly disappears. The High Court in full consciousness of the provision of section 426(1-A) (c), Cr.P.C. has not found the petitioners entitled to the concession of bail in the peculiar circumstances of this case and directed "otherwise".
5. As the Lahore High Court has not exercised its discretion arbitrarily or le unreasonably no ground for interference with its well-reasoned order exists. The upshot is that this petition fails and is dismissed hereby. N.H.Q./I-221/S Leave refused.