1991 PLP 1849 (SCMR)
Mst. RESHAM JAN — Petitioner Versus ABDUR REHMAN — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1849 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Muhammad Afzal Lone, J |
| Parties | Mst. RESHAM JAN — Petitioner Versus ABDUR REHMAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1849 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1849 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Muhammad Afzal Lone, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1849 (SCMR) (Mst. RESHAM JAN — Petitioner Versus ABDUR REHMAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- J.D. Akbarji, A.-G., MA. Qayyum Mazhar, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz M. Khan, Advocate-on -Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 22nd May, 1991.
- J.D. Akbarji, A.‑G., MA. Qayyum Mazhar, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz M. Khan, Advocate‑on -Record for Respondent.
- Regarding the aforenoted legal questions the learned Advocate General N.‑W.F.P. has stated that in future he would himself appear in the High Court in bail matters arising out of murder cases and that he would, in cases like the present one, plead the need for a finding to the effect that there are "no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non‑bailable offence", if the bail is to be granted on the plea of "further inquiry". He has also undertaken to place before the Honourable Judges of the High Court the law laid down by this Court on this question.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 20-3-1991 of the Peshawar High Court, (Abbottabad) in Cr. Misc. No. 31 of 1991).
S. 497(1)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Leave to appeal was granted inter alia to examine the question as to whether in murder cases mere need for further inquiry would entitle the accused to bail under S. 497(b), Cr.P.C.; without there being finding that "there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused had committed a non-bailable offence".
S. 497(1)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302
Whether in murder cases mere need for further inquiry would entitle the accused to bail under S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.; without there being finding that "there was no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused had committed a non-bailable offence".
S. 497(1) & (5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302
Bail, cancellation of-- Accused had been granted bail in a murder case on ground of further inquiry without there being finding that "there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence"
Accused also misused the concession of bail by threatening the witnesses for which a report was also lodged and a copy thereof was placed on record and Police Official having appeared before Supreme Court had categorically stated that the proceedings had also been taken against the accused under Ss. 107 and 151, Cr.P.C.
Supreme Court ordered cancellation of bail granted to accused with the observation that accused was not entitled to bail in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.‑‑‑This appeal through leave of the Court is directed against the grant of bail to the respondent in a case of murder. Leave to appeal was granted amongst others to examine the question: whether mere need for further inquiry would entitle the respondent to bail under section 497(1), Cr.P.C.; without there being finding that "there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non‑bailable offence". Thus the case of the respondent did not fall within subsection (2) of Becton 497, Cr.P.C. therefore, he was not entitled as of right to bail. On the question of merits generally, it has been agreed, this Court should not make any comment. It might prejudice one or the other party. Regarding the aforenoted legal questions the learned Advocate General N.‑W.F.P. has stated that in future he would himself appear in the High Court in bail matters arising out of murder cases and that he would, in cases like the present one, plead the need for a finding to the effect that there are "no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non‑bailable offence", if the bail is to be granted on the plea of "further inquiry". He has also undertaken to place before the Honourable Judges of the High Court the law laid down by this Court on this question. In this case there is an additional ground. The complainant side has also pleaded that the respondent had misused the concession of bail by threatening the witnesses. A report was also lodged in this behalf in the police station on 20‑1‑1991; a copy whereof has been placed on record. Not only this a Sub inspector having appeared before this Court has categorically stated that the proceedings have also been taken by the police under sections 107 and 151, Cr.P.C. Taking all the circumstances into consideration we are of the view that the respondent was not entitled to bail. The same, accordingly, is cancelled. He is already in custody. The State shall take further steps in this behalf. M.B.A./R‑177/S Bail cancelled.