2001 SCMR 1412 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus ZAHEER AHMED and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 SCMR 1412 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus ZAHEER AHMED and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 SCMR 1412 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 SCMR 1412 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 SCMR 1412 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus ZAHEER AHMED and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents:
- Date of hearing: 1st January, 2001.
- Tariq Khokhar, Additional Advocate‑General, Punjab for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 11‑8‑2000 passed by Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Crl. Misc. No.4303‑B of 2000). ‑‑‑‑S.497(5)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.342/406/420/468/471‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Cancellation of bail‑‑‑High Court had granted bail to accused on the grounds that co‑accused had already been released on bail, civil litigation relating to the subject‑matter in dispute was pending before the competent Court having jurisdiction in the matter, scope of S. 409, P.P.C. was yet to be determined with reference to the circumstances of the case and that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R.‑‑ Said order of High Court was in accordance with the material available on record and not open to any exception‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused by Supreme Court to the complainant accordingly and the petition was dismissed. Tariq Khokhar, Additional Advocate‑General, Punjab for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S.497(5)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.342/406/420/468/471‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Cancellation of bail‑‑‑High Court had granted bail to accused on the grounds that co‑accused had already been released on bail, civil litigation relating to the subject‑matter in dispute was pending before the competent Court having jurisdiction in the matter, scope of S. 409, P.P.C. was yet to be determined with reference to the circumstances of the case and that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R.‑‑ Said order of High Court was in accordance with the material available on record and not open to any exception‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused by Supreme Court to the complainant accordingly and the petition was dismissed. Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Tariq Khokhar, Additional Advocate‑General, Punjab for the State. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents: Date of hearing: 1st January, 2001. NAZIM HUSSAIN $IDDIQUI, J. ‑‑‑Petitioner, Muhammad Hussain, has impugned the order dated 11‑8‑2000 of a learned Judge in Chamber, Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.4303‑B of 2000, whereby respondent No. l Zaheer Ahmed was admitted to bail in case of F.I.R. No.84 of 2000 registered under sections 342/406/420/468/471, P.P.C., at Police Station Kohsar, Islamabad on the statement of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has applied for cancellation of said bail. High Court granted bail to the respondent on the grounds, that co‑accused was already released on bail, civil litigation relating to the subject‑matter in dispute is p, pending before the competent Court having jurisdiction in the matter and that the scope of section 409, P.P.C. is, yet, to be determined with reference to the circumstances of the case. High Court also observed that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R.
3. We have examined the order of High Court and are of the view that it is in accordance with the material available on record and not open to any 8 exception.
4. In consequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. N. H.Q. /M‑247/S Leave refused.