Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 316 of 1967, decided on 20th December 1967.
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 16th October 1967, in Cr. Misc. No. 7 of 1967 in Cr. Revision No. 508 of 1967).
S. 498--High Court quashing order for commitment to Sessions but prior to High Court's order Magistrate acting under order of Sessions Judge committing accused to Sessions‑Accused moving High Court for quashment of commitment and meanwhile applying for bail but bail refused Special leave to appeal against order refusing bail not allowed by Supreme Court.
Waheed‑ud‑Din Virk and Ghulam Mohyuddin, Advocates Supreme Court, instructed by S. Masood Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioners.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 20th December 1967.
‑The petitioners in this case, it appears, bad, notwithstanding the accusation in the first information report to the effect that they had held the deceased by the arms while Fateh Sher son of Haider had stabbed him with a knife, been shown only in column No. 2 in the challan form put in against Fateh Sher son of Haider under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
In the Court of the Committing Magistrate, however, the informant lodged a complaint against the present petitioners as well but the complaint was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. In a revision a petition filed in the Court of Sessions Judge, Mianwali, the Magistrate was, however, directed on the 15th of April, 1967, to commit the petitioners to stand their trial. In the meantime, Fateh Sher son of Haider had already been committed to the Sessions Court.
Against this order of the learned Sessions Judge the petitioners moved the High Court in revision. A learned Single Judge has accepted the revision and set aside the order‑‑of the learned Sessions Judge. But during the pendency of the revision in the High Court the Committing Magistrate acting in accordance with the order of the learned Sessions Judge committed the petitioners also to the Court of Session on the 19th of June 1967. Against this the petitioners have moved the High Court for quashing the commitment. This application is pending before the High Court.
In this proceeding for quashing the commitment the peti tioners also applied for bail but a learned Single Judge of the High Court refused to grant bail, although in the quashment proceeding the records have already been called for by the High Court. The petitioners now seek special leave to appeal.
It is contended on their behalf that as the order of the learned Sessions Judge ordering the commitment has already been set aside by the High Court in revision the quashment proceeding is bound to succeed and, therefore, bail should, in the circumstances, have been granted.
It appears to us, however, that this matter is still pending decision in the High Court and it would not be proper for this Court to interfere at this stage. If the commitment is not quashed then it is manifest that the petitioners cannot be enlarged on bail. We see no ground, therefore, to interfere at this stage until some final order has been made with regard to the Quashment proceeding. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Petition dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer