Second bail required guarantee. The Supreme Court held that if a new cause arises in the bail application, the application should have been heard on merit, the second application cannot be heard on the basis of withdrawal of the first application. 2024 S C M R 209
 |
| Second required guarantee. The Supreme Court held that if a new cause arises in the bail application, the application should have been heard on merit, the second application cannot be heard on the basis of withdrawal of the first application. 2024 S C M R 209 |
2024 S C M R 209
(Supreme Court of Pakistan)
مقدمہ: M TAIMOOR ALI---درخواست گزار
مقابلہ: The STATE through P. G. Punjab اور دیگر---جواب دہندگان
مقدمہ نمبر: Criminal Petition No. 1294 of 2023، فیصلہ شدہ 28 نومبر 2023
(لاہور ہائی کورٹ راولپنڈی بینچ راولپنڈی کے 12 اکتوبر 2023 کے حکم کے خلاف)
اہم نکات:
1. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) - دفعہ 497:
درخواست گزار نے اپنی ضمانت کے لیے پہلی درخواست ہائی کورٹ میں واپس لے لی تھی، اور پھر سپریم کورٹ میں نئے جواز کے ساتھ ضمانت کی درخواست دائر کی تھی۔
سپریم کورٹ نے فیصلہ دیا کہ اگر درخواست گزار کو نیا جواز حاصل تھا تو درخواست واپس لینے کی بجائے، درخواست کی میرٹ پر سماعت کی جانی چاہیے تھی۔
اس مقدمے میں سپریم کورٹ نے اس قانونی پوزیشن کو دوبارہ دہرایا جو نازیر احمد بمقابلہ ریاست (PLD 2014 SC 241) اور محمد اسلم بمقابلہ ریاست (PLD 2015 SC 41) میں طے کی گئی تھی۔
چونکہ درخواست گزار کے وکیل نے اس مقدمے کی سماعت نہ کرنے کا فیصلہ کیا، درخواست واپس لے لی گئی۔
2. عدالتی آداب:
سپریم کورٹ نے اس بات پر توجہ دلائی کہ سپریم کورٹ کو "عظیم عدالت" (august court) جیسے الفاظ سے مخاطب کرنا آئین میں مذکور صحیح اصطلاح "سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان" سے انحراف ہے۔
سپریم کورٹ نے واضح کیا کہ آئین میں موجود وضاحت کے مطابق ہر شخص کو سپریم کورٹ کو اسی نام سے مخاطب کرنا چاہیے۔
قانونی حوالہ جات:
نازیر احمد بمقابلہ ریاست PLD 2014 SC 241
محمد اسلم بمقابلہ ریاست PLD 2015 SC 41
وکلاء:
حسن رضا پاشا، وکیل سپریم کورٹ
سید رفاقت حسین شاہ، وکیل آن ریکارڈ
آغا محمد علی، وکیل سپریم کورٹ (جواب دہندہ نمبر 2 کے لیے)
2024 S C M R 209
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Qazi Faez Isa, C.J., Amin-ud-Din Khan and Athar Minallah, JJ
M TAIMOOR ALI---Petitioner
Versus
The STATE through P. G. Punjab and another---Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 1294 of 2023, decided on 28th November, 2023.
(Against the order dated 12 October 2023 passed by Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi in Criminal Misc. No.2761-B of 2023)
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Bail application dismissed as withdrawn---Subsequent/second bail application, filing of---Fresh grounds---Scope---Present criminal petition for leave to appeal had been filed against the impugned order of the High Court wherein it was recorded that the petitioner's counsel did not press the (bail) petition in order to approach the Supreme Court---As per counsel of petitioner (accused) this statement was made because earlier the matter had come before the Supreme Court in another petition which was disposed of by recording that petitioner's counsel did not press it for the time being; and that a fresh ground had accrued to the petitioner on which bail was sought---Held, that if a fresh ground had become available to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order then counsel should not have withdrawn the petition, but insisted that the petition be decided on merits---Legal position on the present issue was by now well settled by the Supreme Court in the cases reported as Nazir Ahmad v. State (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 241) and Muhammad Aslam v. State (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 41)---At present stage counsel for petitioner stated he did not press present petition as he wanted to avail an alternate remedy---Accordingly present petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
Nazir Ahmad v. State PLD 2014 SC 241 and Muhammad Aslam v. State PLD 2015 SC 41 ref.
(b) Practice and procedure---
----Repeated use of word 'august' before the Supreme Court of Pakistan or its alternative 'August Court'---Supreme Court observed that the Supreme Court is mentioned in the Constitution as the 'Supreme Court of Pakistan', without any prefix or adjective, and everyone should endeavour to abide by the descriptions mentioned in the Constitution.
Hassan Raza Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Agha Muhammad Ali, Advocate Supreme Court (on caveat) for Respondent No. 2/Complainant.
2024 S C M R 209
یہ کیس بنیادی طور پر ضابطہ فوجداری 1898 کی دفعہ 497 کے تحت دائر درخواست ضمانت کی حدود و قیود سے متعلق ہے۔ اس میں درج ذیل اہم نکات نمایاں ہیں:
1. دوسری درخواست ضمانت:
اگر ملزم کے پاس کوئی نیا جواز موجود ہو جو پہلے پیش نہیں کیا گیا، تو اسے پہلے عدالت کے روبرو پیش کرنا ضروری ہے۔
عدالت نے وضاحت کی کہ اگر کوئی نیا جواز پیدا ہو تو وکیل کو درخواست واپس لینے کے بجائے، اسے میرٹ پر فیصلہ کرنے کے لیے پیش کرنا چاہیے تھا۔
2. عدالتی عمل کا اصول:
عدالت نے یاد دلایا کہ ایک درخواست کو بار بار واپس لینے اور دوبارہ داخل کرنے کی اجازت عدالت کے عمل کو پیچیدہ بنانے کے مترادف ہے۔ اس ضمن میں سابقہ فیصلے نذیر احمد بنام ریاست (PLD 2014 SC 241) اور محمد اسلم بنام ریاست (PLD 2015 SC 41) کی نظیریں پیش کی گئیں۔
3. "اگست" کا استعمال:
عدالت نے مشاہدہ کیا کہ آئین میں عدالت عظمیٰ کو صرف "سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان" کہا گیا ہے، اور کسی اضافی صفت (جیسے "اگست" یا "عالی") کے استعمال سے اجتناب کرنا چاہیے۔
یہ فیصلہ قانونی وکیلوں اور درخواست گزاروں کے لیے اس بات کی نشاندہی کرتا ہے کہ درخواستیں دائر کرتے وقت اصولی اور آئینی ضابطوں کا خیال رکھنا کتنا اہم ہے۔
2024 S C M R 209
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Qazi Faez Isa, C.J., Amin-ud-Din Khan and Athar Minallah, JJ
M TAIMOOR ALI---Petitioner
Versus
The STATE through P. G. Punjab and another---Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 1294 of 2023, decided on 28th November, 2023.
(Against the order dated 12 October 2023 passed by Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi in Criminal Misc. No.2761-B of 2023)
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Bail application dismissed as withdrawn---Subsequent/second bail application, filing of---Fresh grounds---Scope---Present criminal petition for leave to appeal had been filed against the impugned order of the High Court wherein it was recorded that the petitioner's counsel did not press the (bail) petition in order to approach the Supreme Court---As per counsel of petitioner (accused) this statement was made because earlier the matter had come before the Supreme Court in another petition which was disposed of by recording that petitioner's counsel did not press it for the time being; and that a fresh ground had accrued to the petitioner on which bail was sought---Held, that if a fresh ground had become available to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order then counsel should not have withdrawn the petition, but insisted that the petition be decided on merits---Legal position on the present issue was by now well settled by the Supreme Court in the cases reported as Nazir Ahmad v. State (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 241) and Muhammad Aslam v. State (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 41)---At present stage counsel for petitioner stated he did not press present petition as he wanted to avail an alternate remedy---Accordingly present petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
Nazir Ahmad v. State PLD 2014 SC 241 and Muhammad Aslam v. State PLD 2015 SC 41 ref.
(b) Practice and procedure---
----Repeated use of word 'august' before the Supreme Court of Pakistan or its alternative 'August Court'---Supreme Court observed that the Supreme Court is mentioned in the Constitution as the 'Supreme Court of Pakistan', without any prefix or adjective, and everyone should endeavour to abide by the descriptions mentioned in the Constitution.
Hassan Raza Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Agha Muhammad Ali, Advocate Supreme Court (on caveat) for Respondent No. 2/Complainant.
Comments
Post a Comment