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 Appeal No. 58 of 1972, decided on 10th May 1974.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated the 1st December 1971, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2713/B of 1971).
‑‑ S. 498‑Bail, confirmation of‑Bail granted in 1971 and nothing complained of against appellants since then‑State counsel expressing ignorance as to fate of case, whether pending or not‑Bail, in circum stances, confirmed.
Saeed Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Advocate‑ on‑Record for‑Appellants.
Waheeduddin Virk, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Advocate ‑on‑Record for the State.
Date of hearing : 10th May 1972.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 1st December 1971., in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2713/13 of 1971. By this order, a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dismissed the bail application of the appellants in limine.
Appellant No. 1 was Assistant Manager in the Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company, Rawalpindi. Appellant No. 2 is his brother and is a Clerk in the Accounts Section in the same office. They were charged along with one Ghulam Sayedain, an Account Assistant, for embezzlement of nearly Rs. 5,00,000 belonging to the above Insurance Company. The appellants applied for bail and their bail application was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi on the 10th November 1971. Thereafter, the appellants moved an application for bail in the Lahore High Court and their bail application (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2713/8 of 1971), was dismissed in limine on the 1st December 1971. The appellants applied to this Court for leave to appeal and leave was granted to them to consider the question whether the appellants are entitled to bail.
Mr. Saeed Hassan, learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that the bail was granted to the appellants in 1971 and since then nothing has been, complained against the appellants arid, therefore, it is a fit case in which the tail should be confirmed.
Mr. Waheeduddin Virk, learned counsel for the State, stated that it is not known what has happened to the case and whether the case pending against the appellants has finished or not. He also concedes that in the circumstances of the present case, the bail granted to the appellants may be confirmed. In view of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we con firm the bail granted to the appellant to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Rawalpindi.
In the result, the appeal is allowed.
Appeal allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer