2004 P Cr (PLP)
NOOR SULEMAN — Petitioner Versus DARAY KHAN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NOOR SULEMAN — Petitioner Versus DARAY KHAN and another — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (NOOR SULEMAN — Petitioner Versus DARAY KHAN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Karim Anjum for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Yaqoob Khan Marwat for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/34
Application for cancellation of bail
Trial Court was quite justified to hold that the matter needed a thorough probe
Concession of bail had rightly been extended to accused in case by invoking the concept of further inquiry-- Applicant seeking cancellation of bail had not been able to convince that bail granting order was violative of legal norms and had resulted in miscarriage of justice
No extraordinary circumstance had been pointed out which could constitute an impediment in the way of granting bail to accused
Discrepancy between ocular and medical evidence could only be settled at trial, accused, therefore, could remain on bail
Present case was not a fit case wherein interference should be made under S.497(5), Cr.P.C. which otherwise was discretionary and not mandatory-- Application for cancellation of bail, was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Cancellation Nos.215 and 282 of 2003, decided on 18th March, 2004.
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/34
Application for cancellation of bail
Trial Court was quite justified to hold that the matter needed a thorough probe
Concession of bail had rightly been extended to accused in case by invoking the concept of further inquiry-- Applicant seeking cancellation of bail had not been able to convince that bail granting order was violative of legal norms and had resulted in miscarriage of justice
No extraordinary circumstance had been pointed out which could constitute an impediment in the way of granting bail to accused
Discrepancy between ocular and medical evidence could only be settled at trial, accused, therefore, could remain on bail
Present case was not a fit case wherein interference should be made under S.497(5), Cr.P.C. which otherwise was discretionary and not mandatory-- Application for cancellation of bail, was dismissed, in circumstances. 1986 SCMR 1027; 1996 SCMR 555; 1999 PCr.LJ 403; Shahnaz Bibi v. Gul Khan alias Haji Khan and another 1999 PCr.LJ 868 and Bahadur Khan v. Ajmal Khan and another 1998 PCr.LJ 728 ref. Muhammad Karim Anjum for Petitioner. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan Marwat for Respondent. Farooq Akhtar for the State Date of hearing: 18th March, 2004.