2002 PLP 1380 (SCMR)
JEHANZEB alias BHOBI,‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1380 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | JEHANZEB alias BHOBI,‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1380 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1380 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1380 (SCMR) (JEHANZEB alias BHOBI,‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Asif Mehmood Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court and S.Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 13th February, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 21‑1‑2002 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 19‑B of 2002) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss. 17/22‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Accusation against the accused was that he alongwith his co‑accused had taken an amount of 88.5,75,000 for sending two sons of the complainant to United States of America, but the needful was not done‑‑‑Accused was reasonably connected with the offence for which he had been charged‑‑‑Rule of consistency could not be pressed into service as the case of accused was not at par with that of his co‑accused who had been admitted to bail‑‑‑Discretionary order passed by High Court refusing bail to the accused did not call for any interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused to accused in consequence. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has arisen from the order, dated 21‑1‑2002 of a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court whereby the petitioner's bail application arising out of a case under sections 17/22 of Immigration Ordinance, 1979 registered on 12‑10‑2001 vide F.I.R. No.361 of 2001, was turned down.
2. The accusation against the petitioner in brief is that he alongwtth his co‑accused had taken an amount of Rs.5000 for sending two sons of the complainant to United States of America but the needful was not done.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record we are not inclined to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the High Court refusing bail as the petitioner is reasonably connected with the offence for which he has been charged. As regards the rule of consistency it would suffice to say that the same cannot be pressed into service as the petitioner's case is not at par with that of his co‑accused Professor Attaullah Joseph who has been admitted to bail. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave refused. N.H.Q./J‑20/S Leave refused.