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 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 33 of 1978, decided on 8th June 1978.
(Appeal against the judgment and order dated 19th December 1977 of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5099/B of 1977).
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑--
‑‑ S. 497‑Bail‑Respondent alleged to have held deceased when his son hit deceased on head‑Respondent accordingly charged with facilitating murder of deceased‑High Court, held, rightly pointed out case to be one requiring further inquiry and petitioner being entitled to bail.
Mian Nazir 'Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner
Nemo for Respondents
Date of hearing : 8th June 1978.
WAHEEDUDDIN AHMED, J
.‑A case was registered against the respondent Ghulam Hussain under section 302/34, P. P. C. for the murder of Fazal Hussain, father of the petitioner. Ghulam Hussain, respondent No. 1, was allowed bail by the Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, on 8‑11‑77. The petitioner filed a petition for cancellation of bail namely Criminal Miscellaneous 6099/B of 1977 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 19‑12‑1977. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
According to the prosecution on 11‑7‑76 at about 7 p m. Fazal Hussain, father of the petitioner, was murdered by Abdul Qayyum, who was armed with a khunda with the help of his father and respondent No. 1, who held the deceased and disabled him from resisting. According to the F. I. R. the fatal blow was given by Abdul Qayyum on the head of the deceased.
It is quite clear from the F. I. R. that respondent No. 1, was alleged to have held the deceased when his son Abdul Qayyum hit the deceased on the head. Respondent No. 1, is therefore, charged with facilitating the murder of the deceased. It has been rightly pointed out by the High Court that this question requires further enquiry, and the petitioner was entitled to bail.
In our opinion, the High Court has exercised the discretion vested in it properly. This is not a fit case for interference. 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