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. 113 of 1968, decided on 22nd May 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 21st March 1968, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2 of 1968/Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1968).
S. 416‑‑Bail pending appeal‑High Court granting bail to appellant accused of offence under S. 301 on ground that strain part attributed to him was that he gave "lalkara"‑Petition for special leave to appeal against grant of bail--‑Held: Supreme Court ordinarily does not interfere in case of bail save in exceptional circumstances‑‑Leave refused.
Ghulam Haider and others v. Karim Bakhsh and another P L D 1963 S C 46 ref.
Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 22nd May 1968.
‑The respondents Karam Dad Khan and Sahib Dad Khan have been convicted under section 302/34, P. P. C. by the Sessions Judge, Mianwali, for the murder of one, Rafiullah. The High Court while admitting their appeal granted bail to Karam Dad Khan on the ground that the main part attributed to him was "that he gave a 'Lalkara ".
The learned counsel has contended that a person who stands convicted for murder under section 302, P. P. C. cannot be released on bail. It is true that ordinarily such a convict should not be granted bail. Section 426 of the Criminal Procedure Code, however, does not impose any such limitation on the power of the High Court and the High Court for good and sufficient reasons can exercise their power of granting bail under the above section. As the High Court has given cogent reasons for granting bail, we see no good ground for interference in this case. As pointed out by this Court in Ghulam Haider and others v. Karim Bakhsh and another (P L D 1963 S C 46).
'This Court does not interfere in a case of bail, unless the circumstances are altogether of an exceptional character, so that refusal might entail risk of a grave illegality or clear abuse of process, or some gross act of injustice, e.g. victimization."
The learned counsel has, however, failed to point out any such exceptional circumstances for our interference in this case.
This petition is accordingly dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer