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. 169 of 1978, decided on 8th June 1978.
(Appeal against the judgment and order dated 18th April 1978 of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 110/B of 1978).
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑---
---Ss. 497 & 498‑Bail‑Overt act attributed to petitioner in F. I. R. High Court, held, rightly refused to grant bail to petitioner and dis cretion in refusing bail exercised properly.
Jari Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, advocate on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 8th June 1978.
WAHEEDUDDIN AHMED,
J.‑The petitioner, alongwith his two brothers, are involved is F.I. R. No. 124 dated 26‑4‑i7 registered at P. S. Gojra under section 302/34, P. P. C. They filed Criminal Miscellaneous 110/B of 1978 for bail. The petitioner's co‑accused Dilmir and Khan were granted bail by the Lahore High Court by Order dated 18‑4‑78. The petitioner's bail application was dismissed by the Order. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said Order.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he was armed with a Kassi. He alongwith his other co‑accused attacked Abdul Majid deceased and Muhammad Hanif P. W. his brothers. Abdul Majid received three injuries caused by blunt weapon of which one on the head proved fatal. This is attributed to Gulsher.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the F. I. R. According to him Gulsher received 8 injuries caused by blunt weapon, which were simple in nature. He contended that the petitioner Gulsher bad acted in self‑defence and the occurrence took place at the tube‑well of the petitioner.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that an overt act is attributed to Gulsher the petitioner in the F. I. R, and the High Court has rightly refused to grant him the bail. The discretion vested in the High Court has been exercised properly. We do not see any reason to, interfere with the Order of the High Court. 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