Shahzad Haider vs State Ss — 2026 PCrLJ 577 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

Shahzad Haider VS State Ss. 302(b), 392 & 411---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.340(1)---High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vol. III, Chapter 24-C---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property---Striking down right of cross-examination---Legality---Petitioner's right of cross-examination of two prosecution witnesses was closed---Validity---Perusal of record revealed that petitioner was booked in the present case whereby charge against him was framed and subsequently the prosecution was directed to lead its evidence---On 16.05.2025 due to the non- appearance of the petitioner before the Trial Court not only his right to cross-examine the prosecution witness was closed but his non-bailable warrants of arrest were also issued---Thereafter on 14.06.2025 right of the petitioner to cross-examine another prosecution witness was also closed---Trial Court did not consider it appropriate to appoint State Counsel to cross-examine those two material witnesses nor put any question to them and passed the impugned order without any legal justificationwhile ignoring the fact that accused was facing charge of capital offence---Article 10 of the Constitution guaranteed legal aid to an arrested person---Said constitutional right had been protected by the codified law---Section 340(1), Cr.P.C., statutorily recognized the right of an accused to be defended---Such right of an accused of an offence entailing capital punishment was further elaborated under Chapter 24-C of Volume-III of the High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders---Said provisions were crystal clear that a person arrested had a constitutional right to the services of acounsel, therefore, he must be given reasonable opportunity to engage a counsel and the counsel engaged must be given reasonable opportunity to defend him---Basic principle underlying this exercise appeared to be that no one should be condemned unheard---Impugned orders prima facie appeared to be passed in sheer violation of law---Thus, the orders dated 16.05.2025 and 14.06.2025 passed by Trial Court were not sustainable in the eye of law, therefore, same were set- aside---As a sequel thereof, petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity to cross-examine both the prosecution witnesses---If counsel of petitioner did not appear to cross-examine the witnesses, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to appoint counsel at State expenses to meet the requirement of law---Criminal revision was allowed, accordingly.

Shahzad Haider vs State Ss — 2026 PCrLJ 577 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ