1976 PLP 178 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ AND 3 OTHERS‑PETITIONERS‑APPELLANTS Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1976 PLP 178 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | --- Ss. 497 & 498‑‑Bail‑Contention that case involved lengthy investigation, investigation and examination of records did not necessarily require presence of accused appellants In custody and records having already been taken into possession by investigating agency hardly any possibility existed of appellant tampering with same even if enlarged on ball ‑‑,Submission, held,., not without merit‑Interim order of bail confirmed: accused appellants, however, directed to join investigation as and when required on pairs of cancellation of bail.‑‑Bail. |
| Bench Members | Anwarul Haq and Muhammad Haleem, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ AND 3 OTHERS‑PETITIONERS‑APPELLANTS Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 178 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 178 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the --- Ss. 497 & 498‑‑Bail‑Contention that case involved lengthy investigation, investigation and examination of records did not necessarily require presence of accused appellants In custody and records having already been taken into possession by investigating agency hardly any possibility existed of appellant tampering with same even if enlarged on ball ‑‑,Submission, held,., not without merit‑Interim order of bail confirmed: accused appellants, however, directed to join investigation as and when required on pairs of cancellation of bail.‑‑Bail. bench comprising: Anwarul Haq and Muhammad Haleem, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 178 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ AND 3 OTHERS‑PETITIONERS‑APPELLANTS Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- J. H. Rlzvi, Senior Advocate for Petitioners‑Appellants.
- Date of hearing; 9th December 1975.
- Rlaz Ahmed, Asstt. Advocate‑General, Punjab for the State.
- ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab we have decided to convert this petition into appeal, and to dispose it of accordingly.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court (at Bahawalpur) made on 1R‑4‑74 In Criminal Miscellaneous No. 251‑B.75/ (BWP)). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑
Ss. 497 & 498‑‑Bail‑Contention that case involved lengthy investigation, investigation and examination of records did not necessarily require presence of accused appellants In custody and records having already been taken into possession by investigating agency hardly any possibility existed of appellant tampering with same even if enlarged on ball ‑‑,Submission, held,., not without merit‑Interim order of bail confirmed: accused appellants, however, directed to join investigation as and when required on pairs of cancellation of bail.‑‑[Bail]. Rlaz Ahmed, Asstt. Advocate‑General, Punjab for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab we have decided to convert this petition into appeal, and to dispose it of accordingly. The appellants are being prosecuted under sections 420, 468, 470 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code on the allegations that they had made certain interpolations and tampered with the Settlement record on 4ccount of which they derived illegal benefit. A learned Judge of the Lahore High Court has, by his order dated the 18th of April 1975, refused bail mainly on the ground that the matter needs a proper, thorough and detailed Inquiry and investigation and for that purpose the police is entitled to the custody of the appellants. It is submitted by Mr. Jamil Hussain Rizvi that the case involves a lengthy investigation, and the learned Judge in the High Court seas in error in thinking that this investigation and. the examination of the relevant records necessarily requires the presence of toe appellants in custody. It is' next submitted that the records having already been taken into possession by the Investigating Agency, there is hardly any possibility of the appellants tampering with the same even if they are enlarged on bail. We consider that there is merit in the submissions mode on behalf of the appellants. We would accordingly accept this appeal and confirm the interim order of bail already made by this Court on the 30th of April 1975. The appellants are, however, directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so, and their failure to comply in this behalf will render their bail liable to cancellation. Appeal accepted.