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. 387 of 1974, decided on 9th January 1975.
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 7th October 1974, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1677/11 of 1974).
‑‑ S. 497/498‑Bail‑Cancellation of‑Accused‑respondents found innocent by no less than four investigating agencies and names of accused accordingly put in column 2 of Challan‑State counsel not supporting cancellation of bail‑Only three out of sixteen prosecution witnesses examined and end of inquiry not in sight ‑High Court's order refusing to cancel bail, held, faultless and not liable to be interfered with.
Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 9th January 1975.
.‑The petitioner is a complainant, and he challenged the legality and propriety of the order refusing to cancel bail granted to respondents Muhammad Ashraf and Haji Niamat Ali in a case registered against them and four other persons under section 302/307/148/ 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code in July, 1972.
Although the challan was submitted in September 1972 the inquiry proceeding is still pending and has not yet concluded.
It appears that previous to the submission of challan against them no less than four investigating agencies were of opinion that the respondents were innocent, and their nacres were accordingly put in column 2 of the report submitted under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Niamat Ali was granted bail before arrest by the Additional Sessions Judge on the 11th of February, 1974. Subsequently Muhammad Ashraf was enlarged on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the 25th of March 1974.
By an order dated the 8th of April 1974 the complainant's application for cancellation of bail granted to Niamat Ali and two others was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. This order was not challenged before the Supreme Court.
The complainant thereafter moved the High Court for cancellation of bail granted to Niamat Ali and Muhammad Ashraf. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner conceded before the High Court that no fresh ground existed for cancelling the bail granted to Muhammad Ashraf earlier. It was, however, contended that so far as Niamat Ali was concerned a fresh ground came into existence. The High Court found that the alleged ground, namely, absence of deficiency of eye sight had been noticed in the earlier order dated the 8th of April 1974. Besides, the aforesaid order dated the 8th of April 1974 had remained unchallenged.
.
Another co‑accused Bagh Ali was also found innocent by the investigating agencies, and he was granted bail and no body asked for cancellation of his bail.
The learned counsel appearing for the State did not support the petitioner's application for cancellation of bail.
On the date the High Court passed the impugned order only three out of sixteen witnesses had been examined and the end of the inquiry was not in sight.
In these circumstances we are unable to find fault with the order of the High Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
We, however, direct that if the inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not yet concluded it should be done so expeditiously and a report to that effect sent to this Court.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer