MLD 1985

1985 PLP 1329 (MLD)

NASIB KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1607-B of 1985, decided on 18th July, 1985.
Honorable Judges
Lehrasap Khan, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1985 PLP 1329 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Lehrasap Khan, J
Parties NASIB KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1329 (MLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1329 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Lehrasap Khan, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1329 (MLD) (NASIB KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Sh. Naveed Shahryar for Petitioner
  • Date of hearing: 16th July, 1985.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860) , Ss.302, 307 & 109/148/149--Bail, refusal of--Accused found innocent by Police and consequently discharged by Magistrate

Accused having been found guilty in subsequent investigation was challaned--Case fixed for trial--Opinion by Court on merits of case or on plea that subsequent challan was not competent against accused without formal withdrawal of earlier order of discharge not deemed expedient at such stage--Bail refused with direction to trial Court for expeditious trial. Ch. Muhammad Yamin for the Complainant, Zulfiqar Haider, for the State.

Judgment & Decree

Naseeb Khan (or Naseer Khan) petitioner who is involved in a case under section 302/307/109/148/149, P.P.C. arising out of F. I. R. No. 238, dated 2-6-1984, registered at Police Station Sargodha (City) has sought to be released on bail.

2. Previously, the petitioner filed bail application (Criminal Miscellaneous 1345-B of 1985) before this Court but the same was dismissed on 18-6-1985 on the ground that the trial was to commence shortly.

3. It has been submitted in the present bail application that in fact, trial was not fixed for 27-6-1985. The case was fixed only to await the result of writ petition filed in the High Court. It has also been urged that the petitioner was declared innocent as a result of earlier investigation conducted by the local police and as a result thereof he was got discharged by the learned Illaqa Magistrate. It has been averred that subsequently the case was re-investigated by the Crime Branch and pursuant to subsequent investigation, fresh challan has been submitted holding the accused guilty and placing his name in column No.3. It has thus been urged that the order passed by the Illaqa Magistrate whereby the petitioner has earlier been discharged still holds the field. The said order amounts to his acquittal. No fresh challan against the petitioner placing his name in column No.3 was, therefore, competent. It has also been argued that the case of the petitioner is that of further enquiry falling within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

4. It is an admitted fact that the complainant party has withdrawn their application on account of which order to be passed. by this Court in Writ Petition was being awaited. After the withdrawal of the said application, the case has once been fixed for trial before the learned trial Court, but on the maid date of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner and his co-accused sought an adjournment on account of his professional engagements before the Military Court. The case is again fixed for trial.

5. Since the case is. fixed for trial, " is not deemed expedient to express any opinion on the merits of the case or on the plea that subsequent challan was not competent against the petitioner without the formal withdrawal of the earlier order of his discharge. In this view of the matter, the request of .the petitioner for bail is declined. The trial Court is, however, directed to conclude the trial expeditiously by hearing the case from day to day. H.A.K. Bail declined.