1997 SCMR 1361 (PLP)
Mian MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ SHARIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1997 SCMR 1361 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J. and Muhammad Bashir Khan Jehangiri, J |
| Parties | Mian MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ SHARIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 SCMR 1361 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 SCMR 1361 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J. and Muhammad Bashir Khan Jehangiri, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 SCMR 1361 (PLP) (Mian MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ SHARIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 184(3)‑‑‑Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), S.4‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Constitutional petitions had been directly filed under Art.184(3) of the Constitution for grant of bail to accused on the ground that his bail application pending in High Court could not be disposed of in view of the judgment of Supreme Court on the subject of appointment of Judges in consequence whereof two Judges on the Bench were unable to participate in the proceedings‑‑‑Held, remedies and the forums available under the ordinary law had to be exhausted in the normal cause and extraordinary jurisdiction of Supreme Court under which direct Constitutional petitions could be filed should not be resorted to‑‑‑Petitions were consequently treated as ordinary petitions for leave to appeal which was refused‑‑‑Acting Chief Justice of High Court was, however, directed to constitute a proper Bench as contemplated under the law for disposal of bail applications of accused within a specified period. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 184(3)‑‑‑Extraordinary jurisdiction of Supreme Court‑‑‑When remedies and forums are available under the ordinary law, then those forums are to be exhausted in the normal course and resort should not be made to the extraordinary jurisdiction of Supreme Court under which direct Constitutional petitions can be filed. Raja M. Bashir, Deputy Attorney‑General for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.‑‑‑These three Constitutional petitions have directly been filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution in which the prayer is for grant of bail on the ground that the bail applications are pending in the Lahore High Court and final orders have not been passed in view of the judgment of this Court on the subject of appointment of Judges in consequence whereof the two Judges on the Bench have become affected Judges and are unable to participate in the proceedings any more.
2. We issued notice to the Learned Attorney‑General for Pakistan to assist the Court on the question of maintainability of these, petitions, and in response Raja M. Bashir, learned Deputy Attorney‑General, has appeared and taken the, stand that these petitions directly filed are not maintainable. We are of the considered view that when remedies and formus are available under the ordinary law, then those forums are to be exhausted in the normal course and resort should not be made to the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under which direct Constitutional petitions can be filed.
3. We treat these petitions as ordinary petitions for leave to appeal. The grievance of the petitioner in these petitions is that the bail applications could not be disposed of for the reasons stated above and in such circumstances it should be considered that the bail applications have been rejected It is also stated that the bail plea is urged in the High Court not on merits but on the medical grounds and in that connection two certificates are available issued by the doctors in which it is stated that the condition of the petitioner is such that further detention in the jail without proper medical attention can deteriorate his health condition and may cause paralysis.
4. We are of the considered view that the bail applications could not be disposed of by the High Court for the reason which was beyond their control. It is stated before us that the petitioner is being tried for offences in respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance IX of 1984 and under section 10(2) whereof bail plea is to be heard by a Bench of two or more Judges in the High Court. We refuse leave and direct the learned Acting Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court to constitute a proper Bench as contemplated under the provisions of the law mentioned above so that the bail applications may be disposed of within a period of three days from today. Leave is refused and in the result the petitions are dismissed. ' N.H.Q./M.3240/S Petitions dismissed.