2012 PLP 1912 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL alias LALI SARWAR and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 1912 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Ejaz Afzal Khan, Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, Gulzar Ahmed and Muhammad Athar Saeed, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL alias LALI SARWAR and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 1912 (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 1912 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Ejaz Afzal Khan, Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, Gulzar Ahmed and Muhammad Athar Saeed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 1912 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL alias LALI SARWAR and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in Cr. P. 145 of 2011).
- Azam Nazeer Tarar, Advocate Supreme Court along with Hassan Nawaz Makhdoom, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Cr. P. 549-L of 2011).
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6 (in Cr. P. 145 of 2011).
- Azam Nazeer Tarar, Advocate Supreme Court along with Hassan Nawaz Makhdoom, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.3 (in Cr. P. 145 of 2011).
- Malik Irfan, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab for Respondent No.7 (in Cr. P. 145 of 2011).
- Malik Irfan, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab for Respondent No.1 (in Cr. P. 549-L of 2011).
- Date of hearing: 20th January, 2012.
- Mian M. Shafiq Bhandara, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant (in Cr. P. 549-L of 2011).
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the orders dated 14-3-2011 and 5-7-2011 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Revision No.902 of 2010, 905 of 2010, Criminal Miscellaneous No.9158 of 2010 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.7482-B of 2011).
Ss. 91, 496, 497 & 498
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to consider the question as to whether upon summoning of accused by Trial Court in a case arising out of a private complaint accused person needed to apply for bail in terms of Ss.496, 497 & 498, Cr.P.C. or in such a situation he was to submit a bond for his appearance before the Trial Court under S.91, Cr.P.C. Syed Muhammad Firdaus and others v. The State 2005 SCMR 784; Luqman Ali v. Hazaro and another 2010 SCMR 611 and Raham Dad v. Syed Mazhar Hussain Shah Criminal Appeal No.56 of 1986 ref. Respondent No.2 in person (in Cr. P. 549-L of 2011). Mian M. Shafiq Bhandara, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant (in Cr. P. 549-L of 2011).
Judgment & Decree
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.
The question involved in these petitions is as to whether upon his summoning by a trial Court in a case arising out of a private complaint an accused person needs to apply for bail in terms of sections 496, 497 and 498, Cr.P.C. or in such a situation he is only to submit a bond for his appearance before the trial Court under section 91, Cr.P.C. It appears that in different judgments different notes have been struck by this Court on the subject and a reference in this respect may be made to the cases of Syed Muhammad Firdaus and others v. The State (2005 SCMR 784), Luqman Ali v. Hazaro and another (2010 SCMR 611) and Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1986 (Raham Dad v. Syed Mazhar Hussain Shah) decided by this Court on 14-1-1987). At different times different High Courts had also rendered conflicting judgments on the issue. It is, therefore, imperative that such conflicts should be removed or resolved at the earliest so as to restore certainty in the matter for the guidance of all the courts in the country. In this view of the matter leave to appeal is granted in both these petitions and the Office is directed to fix the appeals for regular hearing at the earliest possible, preferably within a period of one month. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 549-L of 2011 have already been admitted to ad interim pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 11-8-2011. Their ad interim pre-arrest bail shall continue till the next date of hearing. MWA/M-52/SC Leave granted.