Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 932/13 of 1986, decided on 13th ;-,ay, 1986
----S. 497(5)--Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss.17 & 22--Bail, cancellation of--Cancellation of bail sought on ground that accused persons obtained favourable affidavits from witnesses fraudulently and under duress which fact, however, categorically denied by accused persons--Cancellation of bail declined, in circumstance.
Malik Mehmood Majid Khan for Petitioner.
K.H. Khurshid and Ihsanullah for Respondents.
Farooq Bedar A.A.-G. for the State.
Muhammad Jamil has moved this application for cancellation of bail of Waqar Azim son of Ijazul Haq, against whom a case under section 17/'32 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 read with section 6 of the Passport Act had been registered. Before arrest Waqar Azim applied for bail. The Special Judge turned down his request by order, dated 18-2-1986. Then he came to this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous 486/B of 1986, I dealt with that application and that too was dismissed. Thereafter, Waqar Azim applied for bail after arrest to Special Judge, who admitted him to bail by order dated 6-3-1986.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused of the respondent had sent two telegrams, one to Munir Raza and the other to Munir Ahmad, in which he asked these persons to contact them. When they came, they were kept in illegal detention and were required to give affidavits. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent thus misused the concession of bail.
3. I have also heard counsel for the respondent. Respondent is present. He denies to have sent any telegram.
4. The A . A .-G . was neutral in the matter. He left the parties to, fight their own battle. In case the respondent acted in a way not warranted by law the petitioner has the necessary remedy. He can approach the police 'and ask them to proceed against the respondent.
5. Counsel for the respondent has given an undertaking that the respondent neither misbehaved nor misused the concession of bail nor would he do so in the future. In view of this the petition is dismissed.
S . D . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer