1997 PLP 1579 (SCMR)
FAZAL REHMAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NAQSHAY and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1997 PLP 1579 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Fazal Ilahi Khan and Muhammad Bashir Khan Jehangiri, JJ |
| Parties | FAZAL REHMAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NAQSHAY and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 1579 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 1579 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Fazal Ilahi Khan and Muhammad Bashir Khan Jehangiri, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 1579 (SCMR) (FAZAL REHMAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NAQSHAY and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Qazi Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Zahoor Qureshi Azad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Kh. Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. l to 3.
- Date of hearing: 22nd April, 1997
- M. Azam Khan, Additional Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P. for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 23‑4‑1995 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, in Cr. Misc. 830 of 1994). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused were in the lock‑up since 3‑8‑1993 and no challan had been put against them for trial because of uncertainty of the forum due to a Supreme Court judgment‑‑‑High Court, therefore, considered the accused's case fit for exercise of discretion in favour of accused without going into the merits of case‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Held, accused had remained in the lock‑up as undertrial from 3‑8‑1993 till 23‑4‑1995 when they were released on bail by High Court‑‑‑Statutory period of two years which could entitle accused persons to grant of bail, though had not yet completed, but leave to appeal against order of the High Court was declined on the ground that in spite of the accused persons' release on 23‑4‑1995 their trial had not so far concluded. M. Azam Khan, Additional Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is prayed for against the judgment dated 23‑4‑1995 of the learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 830 of 1994.
2. It may briefly be stated that on 2‑8‑1993 at about 11‑00 p.m. Fazal Rehmat complainant lodged a report before Sherzada, A. S.I. , while he was on patrol duty, that Naqshay son of Chanay accused‑respondent had a boundary dispute with the deceased which was to be settled through the elders. That he alongwith Azeemullah, Azizullah and Shahan‑ud‑Din, the village elders, had accompanied his brother Khush Amadin, Noor Rehmat and their father Muhammad Zamina. On reaching the spot they found the accused present at the spot. On seeing them the accused attacked his father and brothers with their respective daggers and both expired at the spot. While Noor Rehmat received injuries on his thigh but escaped further injuries because of the intervention of the elders.
3. The accused/respondents moved an application for the release on bail which was rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 30‑6‑1994 and similar was the fate of the application moved before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Swat. Their further application (Cr.Misc. No.830/94) was entertained by the learned High Court, where the Honourable Judge was pleased to order their release on bail vide order against which leave to appeal is prayed for.
4. It may be pointed out that another F.I.R. was registered at Serial No.51 dated 3‑8‑1993 at the instance of the accused/respondent No.1 and the accused charged in the said F.I.R. have been released on bail and the application for cancellation of their bail was also dismissed.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Admittedly the accused/respondents were in the lock‑up since 3‑8‑1993 and no challan has been put against them for trial because of uncertainty of the forum due to this Court judgment given on PATA Regulation. The learned High Court, therefore, considered it a fit case for exercise or its discretion in favour of the accused/respondents without going into the merits of the case. The accused/respondents have remained in the lock‑up as under trial from 3‑8‑1993 till 23‑4‑1995, when they were released on bail by the learned High Court. Though till 23‑4‑1995 they had not completed the statutory period of two years which could entitle them to grant of bail but leave to appeal is declined against the order of the learned High Court on the ground that in spite of the respondents' release on 23‑4‑1995 their trial so far has not concluded. Leave to appeal is refused and petition is dismissed. M.B.A./F‑3/S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.