IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
Present: 
MR. JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED 
MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ATHER 
SAEED 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.240 OF 2012 
(Against the order dated 07.06.2012 of the  
Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in  
Crl.Misc.No. 1496-B-2012) 
 
Salamat Ali alias Chaama 
 
 
 
… 
Petitioner 
VERSUS 
The state and another.  
 
 
 
… 
Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner:  
 
Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik, ASC 
For Respondent No.1: 
 
Mr. Asjad Javed Ghural, Addl.PG.Pb. 
For Respondent No.2: 
 
Mr. Munir Ahmed Bhatti, ASC 
Date of Hearing:  
 
31.08.2012 
 
ORDER 
 
Jawwad S. Khawaja, J. The petitioner seeks bail in the case FIR 
No.417 dated 20.06.2011 under Sections 324, 427, 148, 149, 337-F(vi) 
PPC registered at Police Station city Muridkaey, District Sheikhupura. 
The order which has been passed by the learned trial court on 
21.07.2012 is reproduced below in extenso:- 
 
 
 
2. 
It is obvious that the learned trial Court exercised extreme patience 
and restraint but counsel retained by the petitioner adopted an attitude 
which has hindered the administration of justice. Mr. Maqbool Elahi 
Malik learned Sr. ASC candidly stated that the attitude of counsel for  
the petitioner before the learned trail Court was most improper and 
should not be countenanced. Upon being questioned we have been 
informed that Malik haider Zaman, Advocate Continues to be the counsel 
of the petitioner even to date. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 
argued that the testimony of even one witness has not been recorded in 
the case so far. This contention is of little relevance considering the 
attitude of the contention is of little relevance considering the attitude of 
the petitioner’s counsel noted in the order reproduced above. Learned 
counsel for the petitioner states that consequences of such attitude 
should not be visited on the petitioner, who according to him, had 
acquired a statutory right to bail under Section 497 CR.P.C. 
3. 
In support of his contention, he referred to the cases titled Rahim 
Bux and others versus The State (PLD 1986 Karachi 224) & Zahid 
Hussain Shah versus The State (PLD 1995 SC 49). We have gone through 
the cited precedents and note that the same do not apply in the 
circumstances of the present case because the same are clearly 
distinguishable on facts. In the present case the petitioner acting 
through and represented by his counsel has actually obstructed the 
progress of the case. This was not the situation in the precedents cited 
by learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner by retaining the 
same counsel has, in effect, adopted and condoned the attitude of his 
counsel. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, 
therefore, misconceived as the present petition has itself demonstrated 
that the concession of bail or the discretionary exercise of our 
jurisdiction under Article 185 of the Constitution should not be exercised 
in view of what has been stated above and in the order of the learned 
trail Court dated 21.07.2012. 
4. 
A competent, diligent and ethical Bar is an indispensable 
component of our judicial system. This system cannot function properly 
if Members of the Bar do not adhere to the code of conduct prescribed 
under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973.  
5. 
This petition is, therefore, dismissed. A copy of the order shall be 
sent to the Punjab Bar Council for disciplinary proceedings against Malik 
Haider Zaman. A copy of the order shall also be sent to Hon’ble the Chief 
Justice of the Lahore High Court. We would like to express our 
appreciation for the dignified and firm approach taken by the learned 
trail Court in the face of provocation and trying circumstances. The office 
shall send a copy of this order to the learned trail Judge who was the 
Presiding Officer at the trail on 21.7.2012.  
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Islamabad, the: 
31st August, 2012. 
 
   


(Appellate Jurisdiction)




 



  





Criminal Petition No. 240 of 2012
Crl. Misc. No. 1496-B-2012



07.06.2012
    





















  







 

   
1

 




  

2

 

2012

 31

 





324, 427, 148, 149,
 
20.06.11

FIR No. 417
 

 

  
21.07.12





 
  
PPC337-F(vi)


  
 


 






 

 




 
03-04-12


  







presiding court

  
apprise





  



assume
 



press




 






     
  




  



 
 






 
 






  
 





   


  


  





  

  
 


 
 

  

 
 
 

 
  




  


 
    
 


    
 


  






26.07.12


 

27



  




 


  






  

 


 


 
 
 

 



   
  
  

    



 
  



 
  


  


    




 


 
 

   



  
 
 
2

  

ASC

   





  





   


 


  






  


 

  


 
  




  



 





     



 
  



 

497
 





 


(PLD 1986 Karachi
   
   
3
 

   
 
PLD 1995 SC 49



 
224


  


  
 



 

     


  

  

  

 
  



     
 
  







   

 

185


  

   


21.07.12


  





  
 








  
4






1973



 


 






   


5





    

  


 

 

 








 
21.07.12








2012

 31
