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.
1971 S C M R 62
Present: Hamoodur Rahman, C. J., Muhammad Yaqub Ali and
Waheeduddin Ahmad, JJ
RAFAT ALI‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑Respondent
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑22 of 1970, decided on 17th August 1970.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 24th April 1970, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 1970).
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),
S. 497(5)‑Bail, can cellation of‑Finding of committing Court that prima facie case exists warranting committal to Court of Session ‑Sufficient to indicate existence of reasonable grounds for believing that accused was guilty of having committed offence punishable with death or transportation for life‑No question of grant of bail to accused in circumstances, held, arose.
Sajid Ali, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 17th August 1970.
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑
The petitioner in this case, along with 12 others, is an accused in a criminal case started ‑in respect of offences under sections 302/149, 148 and 452 of the Pakistan penal Code in respect of an incident which is alleged to have taken place on the 24th of May 1968. He applied for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, who released all the 13 accused on bail, even though this was a case in which double murder was alleged to have been committed. The High Court, on the application of the father of one of the deceased, treated the matter as a suo motu revision and came to the conclusion that the Additional Sessions Judge had granted bail without consider ing the weight of the prosecution case against each of the accused. The High Court, accordingly, directed the Additional Sessions Judge to re‑examine the question of grant of bail of each accused separately except in the case of the present petitioner whose bail was cancelled by it on the following grounds :‑
(a) that he had abused the grant of bail by actually threaten ing and assaulting the prosecution witnesses who had deposed against him, and
(b) that he had been guilty of tampering with the prosecution witnesses.
The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal. His father, who is also his constituted Attorney, has appeared in person to support this application. He has admitted that since the order of the High Court the accused in this case including the petitioner, have been committed to trial in the Court of Session. In this view of the matter no question of grant of bail arises. The finding of the committing Court that a prima facie case exists warranting com mittal to the Court of Session, is sufficient to indicate that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is guilty of having committed an offence punishable with death or transporta tion for life.
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