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. K/11 of 1978 decided on 15th March 1978.
(On appeal from the judgment of Sind High Court, dated 29‑1‑1978).
--‑ Ss. 497 & 498‑Bail‑Petitioner accused and four other abscond ing accused allegedly coming to a house, Bring aimlessly and injuring two persons‑Contention that there being no evidence as to who was responsible for causing injuries case not covered by S. 307, Penal Coda 1860, and petitioner entitled to bail‑geld whether or not case under S. 307, P. P. C. could only be determined at trial and expression of any opinion at leave to appeal sage in Supreme Court premature‑Trial delayed due to absconding of other seemed, delay in case on such account, held, does not entitle petitioner to be released on bail‑Directions, however, issued to trial Court to proceed against rest of accused under S. 512, Cr. P C and complete trial of case as expeditiously as possible‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307.‑ [Delay ].
M. A. Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Ahmadullah Farooqi; Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 15th March 1978.
‑--‑This petition is directed against the Order of a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court in Criminal Bail Application No. 48 of 1978 dated 29‑1‑78. By this Order the bail application of the petitioner was dismissed.
The case against the petitioner is that he along with four persons duly armed with rifles came to the house of one Mohram and fired aimlessly whereby the mother of the informant Mst. Jamul and brother s wife Mst. Dadli received fire injuries and on account of the Intervention of the people of village the accused ran away. The petitioner was arrested in. 1975. The other accused are still absconding and therefore the case of the petitioner is awaiting trial.
Mr. M. A. Shaikh the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no evidence to show as to who was responsible fast causing injuries to the above mentioned ladies. He contended that this case does not fall under section 307, P. P. C. and therefore the petitioner should be released an bail. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. The question whether the case falls under section 307, P. P C. or not can only be determined at the trial and it will be premature to express any opinion on this point.
It was next contended that the petitioner was arrested in‑1975 and the trial has not yet commenced and there is delay. It will be noticed that there ass other accused in the case who are still absconding and it is for this reason that the trial of the case bas not been commenced In our opinion, the delay in the present case does not entitle the petitioner to be released on bail. We would, however, direct the trial Court to proceed against the rest of the accused under section 512, Cr. P. C. and complete trial of the case as expeditiously as possible. With these remarks, the petition is 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