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. 290 of 1968, decided on 21st October 1968.
(On appeal, from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 3rd October 1968, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4818 of 1968).
S. 498‑High Court dismissing petition for bail by terse order: "No grounds for bail. Dismissed"‑High Court, held, did not give proper reasons for refusal to grant bail.
Barkat Ali Saleemi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Maqbool Ahmad, Attorney for Petitioners.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 21st October 1968.
The three petitioners and 5 others who have been charged‑under sections 307, 452, 148 and 149 of the‑ Pakistan Penal Code, applied for bail to a‑ Magistrate of the First Class, Rawalpindi, who granted bail to two but rejected the application of the rest. The remaining then applied to the Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi who granted bail to three more but refused' bail to the present petitioners. They then moved the High Court under section 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code but a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan dismissed the application by merely saying "No grounds for bail. Dismissed."
The petitioners now seek special leave to appeal to this Court and it is contended on their behalf that this is not a proper disposal of a bail application. It is no doubt true that the learned Judge's order does not disclose whether the learned Judge had applied his mind to all the relevant facts and circum stances of the case, but having heard the learned counsel and examined the First Information Report as well as the orders of the Courts below we are satisfied that the petitioners were rightly refused bail at this stage. The First Information Report did name the petitioners and assigned specific parts to them. The petitioner Rahmat was armed with a gun and the petitioners Nawaz and Fazalur Rehman were armed with hatchets. Nawaz actually broke open the door and fired into the room but for tunately the pellets only hit the wall. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the statement in the first information report if left un-contradicted, would not have furnished reasonable ground for believing that the accused would not be committed under sections 307 and 452, P. P. C.
The order of the High Court, therefore, appears to be correct although no reasons for the same have been given. This is not a fit case, therefore, for interference. The 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