Step 1 of 8
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Step 1 of 7
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Latest Judgments (All Jurisdictions within Pakistan)
GHAFFAR alias KALI vs The STATE and others
Summary: Summary pending
COMPLAINT AGAINST CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY: In the matter of C Misc No 127 of 2015 in SMC No 3 of 2015 decided on 26th November 2015 GilgitBaltistan (Empowerment and SelfGovernance) Order 2009
Summary: Summary pending
STATE through Prosecutor General Punjab vs NASEEB SHAH and 5 others
Summary: Summary pending
MUHAMMAD MAMOON TARAR VS DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER HAFIZABAD
Summary: Summary pending.
GHULAM NASAR KHAN VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
MOHAMMAD MUNIR VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
SHEIKH MUHAMMAD SABIR VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
THE STATE THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ATA OTHERSS VS ABDUL BARI
Summary: Summary pending.
Akhtar Muhammad Vs State
Summary: S.365-A PPC, 7(e)ATA Jurisdiction of ATC in schedule & connected offences(Acquitted)
SHEIKH MUHAMMAD SABIR (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
420 PPC489 F PPC497 CrPC561-A CrPCBail Before ArrestCancellation of BailCheque DishonourCriminal LawPre-Arrest Bail
Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 497(5) & 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 489-F & 420---Bail, cancellation of---Condonation as to appearance of accused during pendency of application for cancellation of bail---Inherent powers of High Court---Scope---Pre-arrest bail granted to accused was conditionally confirmed by Court of Session on basis of compromise between the parties, subject to payment of the amount mentioned in the dishonoured cheque in monthly instalments---Accused failed to make payments, on which the complainant filed application for cancellation of bail---Accused, instead of appearing before the court, filed application for condonation of his appearance for an indefinite period on medical grounds, which was dismissed by the court---In the garb of impugned order the accused had challenged the maintainability of the cancellation application---Question of jurisdiction had to be first raised before the Court, which had granted the bail---Grounds which had not been taken by the accused before the trial court, could not be examined by the High Court in exercise of inherent powers under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. to interfere with the proceedings of the court below, as the same would amount to usurpation of power of the lower court---Accused, in such circumstances, before violating the bail order, should have filed application before the same court for modification of said order or breach of any undertaking by the complainant---Accused was guilty of violating the undertaking given by him before the court below for obtaining order of confirmation of bail---Accused was, thus, playing with the courts by unilaterally claiming that the complainant had not withdrawn the case--- Accused without exhausting said remedy had directly invoked the inherent jurisdiction of High Court, to obtain relief which had not been prayed before the Court of first instance---Accused had avoided to explain his position before the court below by abusing the process of the High Court under the cover of present proceedings for about eleven months---High Court, holding that the accused was to be put on notice as to why bail before arrest granted by the court below should not be cancelled on ground of violating the terms thereof, directed the accused, pending cancellation application, to comply with initial order for payment of monthly instalments by depositing the arrears of instalments with the Nazir of the High Court---Application under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. was disposed of accordingly.