M Taimoor Ali vs The State through P.G. Punjab and another
This criminal petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order where the petitioner's counsel did not press the petition to approach the Supreme Court, mistakenly believing a fresh ground for bail required a withdrawal. The core legal question concerned the propriety of withdrawing a petition when a fresh ground for relief allegedly arises. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn as the counsel opted to avail an alternate remedy, while reiterating the established legal position that if a fresh ground becomes available, counsel should insist on a decision on merits rather than withdrawing. Additionally, the Court observed that the use of the prefix 'august' before the Supreme Court is incorrect, emphasizing that the institution should be referred to strictly as the Supreme Court of Pakistan as designated in the Constitution.
- Should a petition be withdrawn when a fresh ground becomes available prior to the passing of an order?
- Can a counsel insist on a decision on merits when a new ground for relief arises?
- What is the correct constitutional designation of the Supreme Court of Pakistan without prefixes?
- Article 191, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
Qazi Faez Isa, CJ. This criminal petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the order dated 12 October 2023 wherein it is recorded that the petitioner's counsel did not press this petition in order to approach 'august' Supreme Court of Pakistan. It is submitted that this statement was made because earlier the matter had come before this Court in Criminal Petition No.260/2023 which was disposed of vide order dated 6 April 2023 by recording that petitioner's counsel did not press it for the time being. Learned counsel submits that a fresh ground had accrued to the petitioner on which bail was sought.
2. 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ground had become available to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order then counsel should not have withdrawn the petition, but insisted that the petition be decided on merits. The legal position is by now well settled by this Court since the last about ten years in the cases of Nazir Ahmad v State (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 241) and Muhammad Aslam v State (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 41). At this stage learned counsel states he does not press this petition as he wants to avail of an alternate remedy. Accordingly the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
3. We also observe the repeated use of word 'august' used before the Supreme Court of Pakistan or it is used as an alternative August Court. This Court is mentioned in the Constitution as the Supreme Court of Pakistan, without any prefix or adjective, and we should all endeavour to abide by the descriptions mentioned in the Constitution.