1990 PLP 568 (SCMR)
AZRAR AHMAD BUTT alias PAPPU‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 568 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | AZRAR AHMAD BUTT alias PAPPU‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 568 (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 1990 PLP 568 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 568 (SCMR) (AZRAR AHMAD BUTT alias PAPPU‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- D.M. Awan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and S. lnayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 30th October, 1989.
- Faiz Muhammad Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
- When the main petition came up for the hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked; as to whether, any compensation has been paid to the injured person as a result of the compromise noticed in the order dated 10‑7‑1989. Notice was also issued to the Advocate‑General.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 31‑5‑1989 of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3 of 1989 in Criminal Appeal No. 192 of 1989)., ‑‑‑S.426‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Injured person stated in Court that parties had settled the matter out of Court and were now on very good terms with each other and also that he had received adequate compensation in cash‑‑‑State counsel, in light of these circumstances, did not object to confirmation of interim bail already granted to accused petitioner requesting for a consent order‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was consequently converted into appeal and was allowed confirming interim bail granted to accused petitioner. Faiz Muhammad Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the refusal of the High Court to suspend the sentence of the petitioner in conviction under section 307/34, P.P.C., during the pendency of his appeal in the High Court. This Court granted interim bail to the petitioner on 10‑7‑1989 with the following order:‑ "Submits that the learned Judge in the High Court has not given proper consideration to the fact that the parties have compromised and the injured complainant has forgiven the petitioner in the interest of amity amongst the parties. (2) Issue notice to the State. (3) Meanwhile the petitioner will be released on ad interim bail on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Magistrate/A.C. Sargodha." When the main petition came up for the hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked; as to whether, any compensation has been paid to the injured person as a result of the compromise noticed in the order dated 10‑7‑1989. Notice was also issued to the Advocate‑General. Today learned counsel has produced the injured person who has stated that the parties have settled the matter out of Court and are now on very good terms with each .other. He also stated that he has received adequate compensation in cash. In the light of all these circumstances the learned counsel appearing for the State did not raise any objection to the confirmation of the interim bail granted to the petitioner by this Court and accordingly a request was made for a consent order. Therefore, in the light of what has been stated above, we convert this petition into appeal and allow the same. The interim bail granted to the petitioner on 10‑7‑1989 is confirmed. N.H.Q./A‑660/S Bail confirmed.