Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

MUHARRAM versus STATE


In the circumstances of the High Court, where the applicant of the Section 498 bail was found to have beaten the suspect with a hockey stick and caused serious injury to the head of the deceased by medical evidence, it cannot be said that he did so at his discretion. Whether the use is arbitrary or inadvertently refused to grant bail to the applicant. The High Court granted bail to another accused, accused of using a firearm, which has been withheld because of a ballistic expert report, which denied him the petitioners' request. I do not equate to law error in the High Court section. To guarantee

1979 S C M R 34

Present : Dorab Patel, Muhammad Haleem and G. Safdar Shah; JJ

MUHARRAM‑Petitioner

versus

THE STATE‑Respondent

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑41 of 1978, decided on 28th September 1978.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sind High Court dated 26‑8‑1978 in Criminal Bail Application No. 860 of 1978).

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑

----S. 498‑Bail‑Petitioner accused hitting deceased on head with hockey stick and medical evidence showing injuries of serious nature on deceased's head‑High Court in circumstances, held, could not be said to have exercised its discretion arbitrarily or perversely in refusing bail to petitioner‑Fact of High Court having granted bail to another accused, charged for using a fire‑arm, due to Ballistic Expert's report being in negative, held further, does not amount to error in law on High Court's part in refusing petitioner's prayer for bail.

M. I. Memon, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Usman‑i‑Ghani, Additional Advocate‑General (Sind) for the State.

Date of hearing : 28th September 1978.

ORDER

DORAB PATEL, J.

‑Ramzan son of Allah Rakhio was attacked at about 5‑30 p. m., in the bazar of Kazi Ahmad (Sind) on 21‑11‑1976. He later succumbed to his injuries and the petitioner together with his two brothers, Hayat and Allah Warayo and his father Murid are being tried for the murder.

According to the F. I. R. lodged by the said Allah Rakhio only the proverbial lalkara was attributed to Murid. On the other band, according to the F. I. R., the petitioner gave blows with a hockey stick to Ramzan on his head, whilst his brother Allah Warayo fired at him (Ramzan), and Hayat (the other brother of the petitioner) gave fists and kick blows to Ramzan. In view of the investigations, the Police arrested in due course the said Murid and his three sons including the petitioner.

Since Murid and the petitioner's brother Hayat were successful in obtaining bail pending their trial, the petitioner and his other brother Allah Warayo also applied for bail. But as the Sessions Court, Nawabshah dismissed the bail application by an order dated 6‑5‑1978, the petitioner and his brother Allah Warayo challenged this order in the Sind High Court. A learned Judge of the High Court allowed the bail application of Allah Warayo, but as he dismissed the petitioner's bail application, by his order dated 26‑8‑1978, the petitioner has filed this petition for leave.

Mr. Memon relied principally on the fact that the learned Judge had granted bail to Allah Warayo, although he used a fire‑arm, and it was not disputed that the deceased had a fire‑arm injury. But although the deceased was hit by a bullet, the report of the Ballistic Expert was negative, therefore, merely because the High Court granted bail to Allah Warayo, this does not mean that it erred in law in refusing the petitioner's prayer for bail. And, on the other hand, according to the F. I. R., the petitioner had hit the deceased on the head with a hockey stick, therefore, we enquired from learned counsel whether this allegation was supported by the medical evidence and by the statements recorded by the Police. Learned counsel admitted that the medical evidence showed that the deceased had injuries on the head which were of a serious nature. In these circumstances, the question of the grant of bail was within the discretion of the learned Judge and it cannot be said that the learned Judge exercised his discretion arbitrarily or perversely in refusing bail to the petitioner:' Therefore, no case has been made out for the grant of special leave.

Learned counsel then submitted that the petitioner had been languishing in jail for two years and that there was no chance of the case being tried in the near future in view of the heavy arrears of work in the Sessions Court, Nawabshah. We are disturbed by this aspect of the case and we hope that the case will be disposed of expeditiously by the Sessions Court. However, if there be inordinate delay in the hearing of the case, the petitioner would be free to apply for bail. With these observations, the petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
top advocates from Phoolnagar (Bhai Pheru) lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.