| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 2470 2019 SLD 2470 2019 PLJ 110 |
Sindh High Court
Crl. Misc. Appln. No. D-187 of 2018, decision & hearing Dated: 29.06.2018.
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JUSTICE ADNAN IQBAL CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. A.R. Faruq Pirzada Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Qurban Ali Malano Advocate files Vakalatnama on behalf No. 1.
Crl. Misc. Appln. No. D-187 of 2018, decision & hearing Dated: 29.06.2018.
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JUSTICE ADNAN IQBAL CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. A.R. Faruq Pirzada Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Qurban Ali Malano Advocate files Vakalatnama on behalf No. 1.
PERVAIZ AHMED
VS
SARDAR KHAN AND 2 OTHERS
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 497(2)(5),498A
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 109,114,148,149,302,000
Right of hearing-- ----A right of hearing is never meant to prejudice the purpose of the Court(s) i.e. to ensure 'fair & speedy justice'--A right of hearing cannot be exploited so as to frustrate the authority of the Court (s) to regulate hearing of the matters fixed before it--When it appears to the Court that such right is being exploited thereby turning an opportunity of hearing into 'more injustice' then Courts can competently proceed further on basis of available record. 2016 SCMR 1961 rel. Bail-- ----Legal proposition of law--Normally a bail grant would not be reversed unless found to be completely against the evidence/material, available on record, as well settled principles of law for grant of pre-arrest bail in particular. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 497(5)--Cancellation of bail-- This is a case of three persons murder--Political rivalry is alleged against respondents/accused, who are claiming to be Sardar of Chandia tribe--Held: It is settled principle of law that plea of alibi cannot be considered for controlling the discretion of grant or otherwise of bail plea--There is no denial to the fact that all witnesses of prosecution have categorically supported the allegations against the respondent no.2 hence plea of alibi alone was never sufficient to prevail over the prosecution matrial--Needless to add that statements of independent persons, even if recorded during course of investigation, if appears to be defence version, be not allowed to prevail over prosecution witnesses--This is for simple reason that if such practice is allowed, the influential accused persons would always succeed in getting such material--This aspect perhaps was never taken note by trial Court--Discretion to grant or refuse bail plea is not dependant upon police opinion or 'no objection / objection of state counsel' but an independent view of the Court itself that accused made out a case for grant of bail within meaning of criterions, so set for post or pre-arrest bail, as the case may be--For making out a case for pre-arrest bail it was obligatory upon the accused / respondent that his involvement was result of malafide on part of the police or…
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