MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SULEHRIA Versus DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ISLAMABAD

ORDER

SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, C J.--- Office has raised Objection that petitioner has not supplied copy of F.I.R. Learned counsel has been heard. He contends with reference to "Mst. Razia Shaheen v. The State PLD 1997 Lah. 659, that filing of certified copy of F.I.R. is not a requirement of law.

2. I have examined the judgment and find that in the case cited supra, the F.I.R. was sealed and was thus not available to the petitioner, who was under apprehension of arrest and seeking pre-arrest bail.

3. I recall that some time back, the petitions were received without, submission of F.I.R. and only the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner, at bar was deemed to be sufficient. Then later on, due to certain difficulties, it was ordered that a photostat copy of F.I.R. shall be filed invariably. Then another situation came when interpolation was made in the photostat copy of the F.I.R., which was taken serious note of by learned bench on administrative side, directed that in future no petition be entertained unless it is accompanied by certified copy of F.I.R.

4. Office objection thus sustained.

H.B.T./M-8/Isl. Objection sustained.