Case Details

Citation(s)
1976 SLG 3060 = 1976 SLD 3060 = 1976 PLD 112
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 474 of 1975, decided on 13th February 1976.
Presented By: Abdul Ghani Khan Khattak, J
Khalid Ranja for Petitioner. Mufti Muhammad Idris, A: G. for the State.

TAJ MUHAMMAD-Petitioner

VERSUS

TAJ STATE-Respondent

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497, 498

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Ss. 497 & 498-Bail-Plea of alibi-Held, considered "sufficient" for allowing bail only in cases of exception attended by extraordinary circumstances.- [Bail]. It is only in cases of exception attended by extraordinary circum stances where the plea of alibi is considered "sufficient" for allowing bail to an accused person. Ch. Muhammad Shafi v. Muhammad Anwar Samma and others 1975 S C M R 219 held not applicable. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 498-Bail before arrest-High Court and Court of Session must exercise discretion under S. 498 judicially-Legislature having chosen to introduce initial stage of dealing with question of bail, Magistrates have ample power to exercise their discretion in almost all matters--- High Court, held, ought not to grant bail in such cases except for exceptional and very special reasons.-[Bail]. Though the discretion under section 498, Cr. P. C. is absolute, the High Court and for that matter the Court of Session must exercise it judicially and since the Legislature has chosen to introduce the initial stage of dealing with the question of bail to Magistrates and while the Magistrates have ample power to exercise their discretion, in all matters barring very few, the High Court ought not to grant bail in such cases except for exceptional and for very special reasons. Haji Wall Muhammad v. State 1969 S C M R 233 ; PASCO Corporation v. Mansha Khan 1971 P Cr. L J 136 ; Amir v. State 1973 P Cr L J 205; Walayat Khan v. Muhammad Ashraf P L D 1966 Lah. 902 and Muhammad Iqbal v. State P L D 1963 Lah. 279 held not applicable. Date of hearing: 13th February 1976.                                                                                                                                       JUDGMENT The petitioner Taj Muhammad, an A. S. I.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register