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. 251 of 1978, decided on 20th July 1978.
(On appeal from the order dated 25th June 1978 of the Lahore High Court, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2268/9 of 1978).
---S. 497/498‑Pre‑arrest bail‑Petitioners not going to be arrested on account of mala fides of prosecution but for being accused of serious criminal offences of having caused many injuries to opposite party after arming themselves with deadly weapons‑No question of grant of pre‑arrest bail, in circumstances, held, arises.
A. Rashid Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for the State
Date of hearing : 20th July 1978. .
.‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 25‑6..1978 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2268/8 of 1978, whereby the petitioners were refused bail in a case registered against them under sections 307, 379, 148 and 149, P. P. C.
The allegations against the petitioners as disclosed in the F.I.R. are that Muhammad Shahbaz Khan, Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Muhammad Sadiq petitioners, armed with revolver, hockey stick and sota respectively, along with Muhammad Tufail and Sarwar co‑accused, armed with a dang and hockey stick respectively, made a murderous assault on Fazal Khan and Alam Khan. Fazal Khan received three injuries: two by fire‑arms and one by blunt weapon, while Alam Khan received six blunt weapons injuries. The accused are also alleged to have taken the licensed revolver of Fazal Khan while decamping.
The petitioners' application for bail before arrest was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot. They then moved the High Court (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2268/8 of 1978) for pre‑arrest bail. A learned Judge of that Court observed that it could not be said that a false case had been brought against the petitioners for ulterior motive, nor was it one of those cases where the prosecution had trumped up charges against the accused. He, accordingly, dismissed their application.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioners, in the main, is that since there are two versions of the prosecution, there being a cross‑case registered by the petitioners against the complainant party, it is yet to be seen as to which party was the aggressor. Therefore, the case being one of further inquiry, falling within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr. P. C., the petitioners are entitled to the concession of pre‑arrest bail.
This is not at all a fit case for pre‑arrest bail. The petitioners are not being arrested on account of the mala fides of the prosecution. They are accused of serious criminal offence in that, after arming themselves with deadly weapons they caused as many as nine injuries on the opposite‑party. In these circumstances, no question for grant of pre‑arrest bail arises. This 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