1995SCMR144 (PLP)
SHER AHMED and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995SCMR144 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Actg. CJ. and Manzoor Hussain Sial, J |
| Parties | SHER AHMED and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR144 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR144 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Actg. CJ. and Manzoor Hussain Sial, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR144 (PLP) (SHER AHMED and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khalid Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Ashraf Azeem, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th March, 1994.
- S.D. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑‑‑Sher Ahmed and three others stand involved in a case under sections 420/34, 468/471, P,P.C. registered on 29‑12‑1992, at Police Station Bawana, District Jhang. The petitioners seek leave to appeal against order dated 11‑12‑1993 of a learned Single Judge in the Lahore High Court, whereby their application for release on bail was dismissed. The aforesaid case was registered on an application moved by Mst. Shehbaz Bibi wife of Muhammad Anwar deceased to the Deputy Commissioner, Jhang, alleging therein that her husband did not execute power of attorney in favour of Muhammad Yousaf who had transferred land measuring 96 Kanals 11 Marlas on the strength of forged power of attorney, in favour of Sher Ahmad and Khizar Hayat, petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that proceedings in the trial Court were stayed by High Court's order dated 28‑3‑1903 and the petitioners are detained in the judicial lock‑up since the date of their arrest.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 11‑12‑1993, in Cr. Misc. 4459/B of 1993). ‑‑‑‑S. 497 (1)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 420/34/468/471‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Accused were in jail since the date of their arrest‑‑‑Proceedings in the Trial Court had been stayed by High Court‑‑ Case against accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1). Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Accused could not be detained in judicial lock‑up without trial for indefinite period‑‑‑Accused were admitted to bail in circumstances. S.D. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑‑‑Sher Ahmed and three others stand involved in a case under sections 420/34, 468/471, P,P.C. registered on 29‑12‑1992, at Police Station Bawana, District Jhang. The petitioners seek leave to appeal against order dated 11‑12‑1993 of a learned Single Judge in the Lahore High Court, whereby their application for release on bail was dismissed. The aforesaid case was registered on an application moved by Mst. Shehbaz Bibi wife of Muhammad Anwar deceased to the Deputy Commissioner, Jhang, alleging therein that her husband did not execute power of attorney in favour of Muhammad Yousaf who had transferred land measuring 96 Kanals 11 Marlas on the strength of forged power of attorney, in favour of Sher Ahmad and Khizar Hayat, petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that proceedings in the trial Court were stayed by High Court's order dated 28‑3‑1903 and the petitioners are detained in the judicial lock‑up since the date of their arrest.
2. The factum of petitioners' detention in jail ever since their arrest as also that the proceedings in trial Court are stayed since 7‑12‑1993 are not controverted by learned counsel for the State. The case in which the petitioners stand involved admittedly does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and they cannot be detained in judicial lock‑up without trial for indefinite period.
3. In these circumstances, we convert this petition into appeal and allow the petitioner to be released on hail provided each one of them executes bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Chiniot, District Jhang. N.H.Q./S‑868/S Bail allowed.