1985 PLP 900 (SCMR)
MUSHARAF KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 900 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and M.S.H Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | MUSHARAF KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 900 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 900 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and M.S.H Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 900 (SCMR) (MUSHARAF KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Waheeduddin Virk, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmed for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 14th February, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 7‑12‑1983 of the Lahore High Court in Cr. Misc. No.2640/B of 1983). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.497, 498 & 439‑‑Bail‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether High Court had erred in law in setting aside discretion of Sessions Court exercised validly and properly in admitting petitioner to bail‑‑Petition having surrendered himself before Supreme Court allowed to remain on bail.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The petitioner is an accused person under section 302, P.P.C., alongwith two, others in a murder case. He applied for bail before the Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura and the learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated 5‑4‑1983, admitted him to bail in the sum of Rs.40,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the llaqa/Duty Magistrate. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the complainant Ditta obtained a certified copy of this order on 6‑4‑1983 but did not proceed to move for the cancellation of his bail until 25‑10‑1983 i.e for more than six months. On the said date, he filed an application for cancellation of the bail under section 497 (5) read with section 439, Cr.P.C. in the Lahore High Court at Lahore and a learned Single Judge of the High Court was pleased to accept the said application and to cancel the bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhu pura to the petitioner vide his order dated 7‑12‑1983. The petitioner has now moved this Court for leave to appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner was in the circumstances referable to the provisions of sections 439, Cr .P.C. Although no limitation is prescribed for filing the revision petition under section 439, Cr.P.C., but the practice of the Lahore High Court is that this must be filed within 90 days. Since the said application was filed long after the said period the same was liable to be dismissed on that short ground. In any case, the learned Sessions Judge had exercised his discretion to admit the petitioner to bail on sound anti proper reasons but the High Court had erred in law in setting aside the discretion of the learned Sessions Judge exercised validly and A properly. These contentions need further consideration. Leave to appeal is granted. The petitioner, who has surrendered himself before us, is allowed to remain on bail on the Bail Bond furnished by him in pursuance of the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura dated 5‑4‑1980. S.Q. Leave granted.