| Case ID |
0b0d78b6-af55-4e07-aa51-56959009d6d0 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Crl. Misc. No. 8329-B of 2023 |
| Decision Date |
May 25, 2023 |
| Hearing Date |
May 25, 2023 |
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court, presided by Judge Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, dismissed the post-arrest bail petition filed by petitioner Ali Nawaz in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8329-B of 2023. The court examined the circumstances surrounding the incident, which involved firing within the court premises, classifying it as a scheduled offense under Entry-4 of the Third Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Due to the nature of the offense, the court determined that jurisdiction lies exclusively with the Anti-Terrorism Court. Consequently, the case was withdrawn from the Court of Magistrate Section 30 and transferred to the Anti-Terrorism Court in Sahiwal for trial. The petitioner was advised to seek bail directly from the Anti-Terrorism Court, which will evaluate the petition based on its merits. The court emphasized adherence to statutory mandates and the necessity of proper jurisdiction to ensure that serious offenses are handled by specialized courts. The petition was thus disposed of in the terms outlined, ensuring that the case proceeds under the appropriate legal framework as mandated by relevant laws and judicial precedents. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Ali Nawaz versus State, adjudicated by the Lahore High Court on May 25, 2023, the petitioner sought post-arrest bail concerning FIR No. 931 dated September 15, 2021. The charges involved multiple sections under the Pakistan Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997, and the Constitution of Pakistan. The incident at the heart of the case involved firing within the Lahore High Court premises, a serious offense that falls under the scheduled offenses of the Anti-Terrorism Act, specifically Entry-4 of the Third Schedule. This categorization mandates that such offenses are exclusively triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court, highlighting the gravity and specialized nature of the crime. During the proceedings, both the prosecution and defense presented their arguments. The prosecution, represented by Rai Akhtar Hussain Kharal, Muhammad Moeen Ali, and Ms. Noshe Malik, emphasized the necessity of transferring the case to the Anti-Terrorism Court due to the nature of the offense. Conversely, the defense, led by Sardar Nadeem Abbas Dogar and Malik Mukhtar Ahmad Ranjha, contested the jurisdictional authority of the Magistrate's Court, arguing for the validity of the trial process initiated there. The court meticulously reviewed several legal precedents, including PLD 2020 SC 61 and other significant case laws, to ascertain the appropriate jurisdiction. The critical determination was that because the offense occurred within the court premises, the Anti-Terrorism Court holds exclusive jurisdiction, necessitating the transfer of the case from the Magistrate's Court, which lacked such authority. Consequently, the High Court ordered the withdrawal of the case from the Magistrate's jurisdiction and its transfer to the Anti-Terrorism Court in Sahiwal. The petitioner was thus instructed to pursue the bail petition through the Anti-Terrorism Court, which would adjudicate the matter based on its specialized legal framework and merits. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to adhering to statutory mandates, ensuring that offenses of significant gravity are handled by courts equipped with the necessary expertise. Furthermore, the ruling reinforces the importance of proper jurisdiction in legal proceedings, maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the judicial system. By directing the case to the appropriate court, the High Court ensured that justice is administered effectively, respecting both the letter and spirit of the law. This case sets a precedent for future instances where the nature of an offense dictates the jurisdictional authority, thereby streamlining legal processes and upholding the rule of law. Additionally, the comprehensive examination of relevant laws and judicial doctrines in this case serves as a valuable reference for similar legal disputes, emphasizing the judiciary's role in interpreting and applying the law accurately. The transfer of the case to the Anti-Terrorism Court not only aligns with legal protocols but also enhances the focus on combating terrorism and related heinous offenses, contributing to national security and the rule of law. Overall, the decision in Ali Nawaz versus State exemplifies the judiciary's dedication to justice, ensuring that each case is heard by the most competent and specialized court, thereby fostering a fair and effective legal system. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
State,
Anti-Terrorism Court,
Court of Magistrate Section 30,
Court of ordinary jurisdiction
|
| Judges |
Muhammad Amjad Rafiq
|
| Lawyers |
Sardar Nadeem Abbas Dogar,
Rai Akhtar Hussain Kharal,
Muhammad Moeen Ali,
Ms. Noshe Malik,
Malik Mukhtar Ahmad Ranjha
|
| Petitioners |
Ali Nawaz
|
| Respondents |
State etc.
|
| Citations |
2024 SLD 3758,
2024 PLJ 314
|
| Other Citations |
PLD 2020 SC 61,
PLD 1995 Karachi 10,
2014 PCr.LJ 1071 Islamabad,
2020 PCr.LJ 1060(Kar),
PLD 1992 Karachi 10,
1992 PCr.LJ 2308,
1994 SCMR 717,
1985 PCr.LJ 2334,
1956 Lahore 394,
2003 PCr.LJ 1086,
2006 PCr.LJ 1551,
YLR 1554,
PLD 2018 Lahore 836,
Ghulam Hussain and others versus the State and others,
Farooq Ahmed v. State and another,
Amjad Ali and others v. The State,
Muhammad Bilal v. The State and others,
Mir Ali v. The State and another,
Allah Din and 18 others v. The State and another,
Rao Fahd Ali Khan vs The State and another,
Mir Zaman vs Zubair and another,
Fida Hussain vs Additional Sessions Judge, Jampur, District Rajanpur and another,
Azhar Hussain and others v. Government of Punjab and others,
Muhammad Akbar Khan and 3 others vs SHO P.S. Garhi Khairo, District Jacobabad and others,
Muhammad Jawad Hamid vs Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and others,
Rana Abdul Ghaffar vs Abdul Shakoor and 3 others,
Liaqat Parvez Khan vs Government of the Punjab through Horne Secretary and 2 others,
Muhammad Mushtaq vs Muhammad Ashiq and others,
Muhammad Hanif vs The Crown
|
| Laws Involved |
Criminal Procedure Code,
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860,
Anti Terrorism Act, 1997,
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
|
| Sections |
497,
190,
324,
109,
148,
149,
23,
175(2)
|