Citation Name: 2024 PLD 486 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case IMRAN AHMAD KHAN NIAZI vs SPECIAL JUDGE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2024 PLD 486 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case IMRAN AHMAD KHAN NIAZI VS SPECIAL JUDGE, (ANTI-TERRORISM COURT), LAHORE S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 395---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, dacoity, act of terrorism---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail---Non-appearance of petitioner/accused due to conviction and sentence in another case---Personal appearance, exemption from---Petitioner after getting pre-arrest bail in different cases, was convicted in another case, hence he was arrested, confined in jail and it was not possible for him to appear of his own before the Court on two dates, thus his bail petition was dismissed---Validity---Admittedly, petitioner was on ad-interim pre-arrest bail in different cases by the order of the Anti-Terrorism Court when he was convicted and sentenced in another case, therefore, it was not possible for the petitioner to appear on due dates before Anti-Terrorism Court of his own without intervention/order of said Court and even said state of affairs was brought into notice/knowledge of the Court through applications filed for exemption from personal appearance on due date---During pendency of said applications for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner before said Court in those cases, at one stage, said Court obtained/marked attendance of the petitioner through video-link---Impugned order revealed that it was in the knowledge of the Court that petitioner had been convicted and sentenced in another case---Presence of accused on each and every date of hearing before the Court during pendency of application for pre-arrest bail was necessary/mandatory and if he was not present in the Court, his petition would be dismissed due to lack of his presence---If some explanation had been given or brought into the notice of the Court regarding non-appearance of the accused and said explanation was satisfactory, then his presence could be exempted---Court had to consider that whether absence of the accused was for the reason beyond his control and in such circumstances, Court could procure his attendance to decide the application for pre-arrest bail on merits---Impugned orders were set-aside with the directions that all the applications filed by the petitioner for pre-arrest bail shall be deemed as pending before the Trial Court and the Trial Court shall decide applications filed by the petitioner for pre-arrest bail after obtaining/marking personal attendance of the petitioner through video-link---Petitions stood allowed.

Citation Name: 2024 PLD 486 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case IMRAN AHMAD KHAN NIAZI vs SPECIAL JUDGE, (ANTI-TERRORISM COURT), LAHORE S — 2024 PLD 486 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD