Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.191 of 1984, decided on 24th June, 1984.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 25-4-1984 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 904-B /84).
---Art.185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.109--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.6, 10 & 11--Grant of bail by Sessions Judge--Application for cancellation of bail rejected by High Court--Leave to appeal against--Contentions that accused had not surrendered to police nor appeared before Court seeking pre-arrest bail; that since no 'reference to accused had been made in order of Sessions Judge, therefore, impugned order of High Court suffered from infirmity--Leave to appeal granted to consider contention.
Yusuf Ali Khan, Bar-at-Law, Advocate Supreme Court and Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 24th June, 1984.
Naseebuddin, respondent, along with three others namely Mst. Jannat and Mst. Hajran, wife and daughter, respectively of Sultan, was charged under sections 6, 10 and 11 of Ordinance VII of 1979 and section 109, P.P.C. They were admitted to bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sheikhupura vide order dated 20-10-1983. Muhammad Suleman petitioner sought cancellation of the said order in the Lahore High Court on the ground that Naseebuddin had absconded and was, therefore, not entitled to bail and offences he stood charged with are continuing offences but the learned High Court dismissed his application in limine per order dated 25-4-1984.
2. Learned counsel has brought to our notice that Naseebuddin had not surrendered to the police nor he appeared before the Court seeking pre-arrest bail; that the order of learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura dated 20-10-1983, therefore, is exceptionable qua the said respondent; that in the aforesaid order 20-10-1983, the cases of the females only have been discussed but no reference has been made to Naseebuddin respondent and, therefore, the impugned order of High Court suffers from this infirmity as well.
3. We have gone through the record and find substance in the contentions raised by the learned counsel as regards Naseebuddin accused /respondent. We, therefore, grant leave against Naseebuddin respondent only and dismiss the petition against the remaining respondents. Notice shall isue to Naseebuddin accused/ respondent show cause why the impugned order be not set aside.
M. Z. M. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer