Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 135 2014 SLD 135 2014 SCMR 304
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No.896-L of 2012, decision dated: 3rd January, 2013. (On appeal from the order dated 19-11-2012 in Criminal Appeal No.1082 of 2011 (Criminal Miscellaneous No.3 of 2012) passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore)
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, AMIR HANI MUSLIM AND IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE

VS

The STATE and others

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 426,497

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302(b)

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 426 & 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)---Qatl-e-amd---Application for suspension of sentence dismissed as withdrawn or dismissed for non-prosecution---Subsequent application for suspension of sentence filed before the same court---Fresh grounds---Scope---Accused and co-accused were convicted and sentenced by Trial Court under S. 302(b), P.P.C., against which they filed appeals before the High Court---Co-accused filed application for suspension of his sentence, which was allowed and he was enlarged on bail---Accused filed his first application for suspension of sentence on the ground that role ascribed to him was similar to that of co-accused, however said application was dismissed for non-prosecution---Accused filed second application for suspension of his sentence on the same ground of similarity of role and rule of consistency, but it was dismissed as withdrawn---Accused filed his third application for suspension of sentence which was allowed by the High Court on the rule of consistency since role ascribed to accused was similar to that of co-accused---Legality---Ground of similarity of role and rule of consistency was available to accused at the time of filing his first application for suspension of sentence---High Court while suspending sentence of accused had not exercised discretion in a proper and judicious manner and passed impugned order in violation of the law laid down in the case "The State through Advocate-General N.-W.F.P. v. Zubair and 4 others (PLD 1986 SC 173)", which provided that subsequent bail application to the same court shall lie only on a fresh ground which did not exist at the time when first application was made; that if a ground was available to accused at the time when first bail application was filed and was not taken or was not pressed, it could not be considered a fresh ground and made the basis of any subsequent bail application---Impugned order passed by High Court was set aside and bail granted to accused was cancelled. The State through Advocate-General N.-W.F.P. v. Zubair and 4 others PLD 1986 SC 173 ref. JUDGMENT IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, J.---Muhammad Siddique…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492