Find a Lawyer

Petition for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 194 and 207 of 1968, decided on 27th June 1968.

(On appeal from the orders of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 3rd May 1968, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1122 of 1968).

S. 302 and Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497‑Bail in non‑bailable offence‑High Court granting bail to accused observing "Committing Magistrate is sitting over the proceedings for the last six months"‑Observation found factually to be not correct‑Special Leave to Appeal against order of High Court granted by Supreme Court to consider whether High Court in granting bail had exercised discretion in 'judicial and proper manner.

Chaudhri Nazir Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Major Waheed‑ud‑din Virk, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Muhammad Nazar Khan, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

AND

Raja Said Akbar Khan, Advocate‑General West Pakistan (M. Dilawar Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Sh. Ijaz Ali, Attorney for the State.

Nemo far Respondent.

Date of hearing : 27th June 1968.

‑This order will dispose of two petitions for special leave to Appeals Nos. 194 and 207 of 1968. As both the petitions have bean pled against the same order of the High Court. They have been heard together.

The only question raised in these petitions is whether the learned Single Judge of the High Court was justified in granting bail of the respondent Ghulam Muhammad who is an accused in a murder case.

It seems that the learned Single Judge granted bail to the accused "because the learned committing Magistrate is sitting over the proceedings for the last six months without examining a single witness in the enquiry and the case is being adjourned on every occasion". Mr. Nazir Ahmad the learned counsel for the petitioner in Petition No. 194 has pointed out that final challan in this case was put before the Court in the first week of April 1968 and the learned Single Judge granted bail to the accused on 3‑5‑1968. He has, therefore, contended that observa tion of the learned Judge that the Magistrate was sitting over the proceedings for the last six months was factually wrong.

The learned Advocate‑General appearing for the State in Petition No. 207 has brought to our notice that ground which weighed with the learned Judge does not find place in the petition of the accused.

The contention that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Single Judge, in granting bail to the respondent did not exercise his discretion in a judicial and proper manner does not appear to be devoid of force.

We, accordingly, grant leave to appeal. Non‑bailable warrant will issue immediately against the respondent Ghulam Muhammad returnable to the District Magistrate, Sahiwal.

Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.