Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 303 of 1974, decided on 8th January 1975.

(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 8th July 1974, fn Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1880/B of 1974).

‑‑ Criminal proceedings‑Petitioner's counsel not allowed to argue his case on ground that "he tried to argue on the basis of an incorrect copy of the F. I. R. and refused to admit that the copy was incorrect"‑Course of action adopted by Court, held, not proper Court should have afforded proper opportunity to counsel to argue his case, pointed out inaccuracies on record relied on, anti thereafter overruled counsel's contentions for good reasons ‑‑Argument could not, however, be stifled,

‑‑ S. 497/498 ‑Bail‑Allegation of forcible abduction accompanied by two murders committed in same transaction fully supported by abductee in her statement to Magistrate after her recovery‑ Sufficient, if unrebutted, to indicate existence of reasonable grounds of commission of alleged offences ‑‑‑‑Earlier statement of abductee prima facie extorted from her under duress‑Lower Court's order confirming interim bail set aside and case remanded or disposal on merits after hearing counsel for parties.

M. Ismail Bhatti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.

Iftikharul Haq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Advocate‑General, Punjab on notice from the Court for the State.

Date of hearing : 8th January 1975.

.‑‑Amir petitioner a complainant in an abduction‑cum‑double murder case, the abductee and the two deceased being his sisters felt aggrieved by the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 8‑7‑1974, by which interim bail allowed to Khizar Hussain respondent an accused to whom a leading role was attributed in the incident, was confirmed.

2. This case came up before us yesterday in the first instance and having found the two‑fold ground taken by the learned counsel in support of the petition, namely, that he had not been allowed to argue his case by the learned Judge, and that no reasons were given in the impugned order, to be factually correct, we issued notice to the Advocate-General for today. A perusal of the impugned order fully bears out the learned counsel for the, petitioner that he was not allowed to argue his case because he tried to argue on the basis of an incorrect copy of the F.I.R., and refused to admit that the‑copy was incorrect," It may be observed with respect that this was not a proper course of action for the learned Judge to adopt. He should have afforded a proper opportunity to the learned counsel to argue his case, pointed out the inaccuracies on the record relied upon by him and then over‑ruled his contentions for good reasons, but there was hardly any justification to stifle the arguments.

3. Another consideration which appears to have weighed with learned Judge in confirming the interim bail allowed by him to the respondent was the concession made by the learned counsel for the State in view of a state ment made by the abductee in favour of the respondent completely exonerat ing him and his other co‑accused.

4. In support of the petition, learned counsel contended before us that the statement of the abductee which was made the basis of the order of enlargement was a tutored statement made by her under duress at a time when she was under the thumb of the respondent as explained by her in her subsequent statement made on 23‑5‑1974 after recovery wherein she fully supported the prosecution case implicating the respondent as the prin cipal accused who wanted to marry her and for that purpose staged the bloody drama.

5. Having gone through the F.I.R. the two statements of Mst. Naziran abductee, dated 14‑12‑1973 and 23‑5‑1974 and the impugned order, we find that it is a fit case where we should interfere in the interest of justice. Not only was the learned counsel for the petitioner denied the right of audience in Court on an untenable ground but no cogent grounds were given either by the learned Judge in support of the order of confirmation of bail. The allegations of forcible abduction accompanied by two murders committed in the same transaction fully supported by the abductee in her statement made before the Magistrate after she was recovered, which if unrebutted, would be sufficient to indicate the existence of reasonable grounds of the commission of the alleged offences against the respondent and his co‑accused. in accordance with the well settled principles of law. Prima facie, we would be inclined to the view that the earlier statement of the abductee was made by her when she was not a free agent and was extorted from her under duress.

6. In view of the above position. we convert this petition into an appeal and allow the same setting aside the order of the High Court with the direction that the case should go back to the High Court for expeditious disposal on merits after hearing the counsel for the parties. The prayer for interim bail is refused.

Petition allowed. Case remanded

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.