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 Miscellaneous No. 853 of 1978, decided on 1st November I 1978.
-- S. 498-Bail-Accused petitioner remaining outlaw after occurrence for about eight years and his trial to be held independently of previous trial resulting in acquittal of his co-accused-Contention that other accused in case having been acquitted and evidence being same in both cases, petitioner exonerated from charge of murder-Held : Not correct-Acceptance of contention amounts to examining of witnesses in petitioner's case as a matter of mere forma lity or there being no need to examine such witnesses for reason of such evidence having already been taken into consideration in previous case and such course not permissible in law-Bail application rejected.
Hidayatullah Khan for Accused-Petitioner.
M. Sardar Khan, A.-G. for the State.
Date of hearing : 31st October 1978.
The accused/petitioner is charged under section 302/148/149, P. P. C. His application to secure bail has failed before the learned Sessions Judge and hence this application.
The only and one ground urged by the learned counsel in support of this application is that the, co-accused, namely, Sabz Ali and Muhammad Sharif, of the accused/petitioner in this case have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge and since the same evidence has been disbelieved in the case of acquitted accused, it according to the learned counsel also exonerates the accused/petitioner from the charge of murder. The learned Sessions Judge has already considered this contention and he repelled it. The trial of the accused/petitioner will be held independently of the previous trial in which the co-accused of the petitioner were acquitted. If, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel is accepted, it will mean that the witnesses in the case will be examined as a matter of formality or for that matter there would be no need to examine them, as the same evidence given by them in the a trial of the acquitted accused can be taken into consideration which is not permissible in law. The accused/petitioner remained outlaw after the: occurrence for about eight years and thus in the circumstances of the case he is not entitled to bail.
This bail application is, therefore, rejected. It is directed, however that the trial of the accused/petitioner be held as expeditiously as possible.
S. A. H. Application rejected.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer