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.
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal. No. 45 of 1970, decided on 8th April 1970. .
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 10th February 1970, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1/70 in Criminal Revision No. 1325 of 1969).
, S. 497‑Bail‑High Court exercising its discretion on sound judicial principles‑Order of High Court refusing to enlarge accused on bail, held, called for no interference by Supreme Court in circumstance.
Syed Ali Raza, Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 8th April 1970
‑This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 10th February 1970 in Cr. Misc. No. 1/70 in Cr. Revision No. 1325 of 1969. By this order, a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner. He directed that the main case may be disposed of at an early date.
On the 27th May 1958, the petitioner, who is alleged to be armed with kulhari, gave a kulhari blow to Chiragh on his head as a result of which he fell down. A case was registered against the petitioner under section 307, and section 326/34; P. P. C. After investigation, Khurshid son of Nizam Din, co‑accused was acquitted and the petitioner was convicted under section 307, P. P. C. by the Magistrate, Vehari, by order dated the 20th October 1969, to a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300 in default of which the petitioner has to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment for three months. This order was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, on the 3rd December 1969. The petitioner has now taken the matter to the High Court in Cr. Revision No. 1325 of 1969, which was admitted for hearing on the 10th December 1969. His application for suspension of sentence and granting bail was rejected by the impugned order dated the 10th February 1970.
Syed Ali Raza, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the petitioner should not have been convicted under section 307, P. P. C. At best it was a case under section 323, P. P. C. He further contended that it was a fit case in which the petitioner should have been released on bail. The conten tion of the learned counsel has not impressed us. After going through the record, we are satisfied that the High Court has exercised the discretion vested in it on sound judicial, principles. The impugned order calls for no interference. The petition is 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