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. 397 of 1978, decided on 19th October 1978.
(On appeal from the order dated 26‑9‑1978 of the Lahore High Court passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2585‑B of 1978).
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑
---S. 497(5)‑Cancellation of bail‑No allegation of petitioner being involved on account of political or some similar motive‑Petitioners accused of serious criminal offences and yet too early to speculate on degree of their involvement in incident‑High Court, held, rightly cancelled petitioner's pre‑arrest bail.
Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 19th October 1978.
.‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 26‑9‑1978, passed by a Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby he cancelled the order dated 25‑6‑1978 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, granting bail before arrest to the petitioners.
A case under sections 149, and 302/149, P. P. C. has been registered against the petitioners and some others. The petitioners and one of their co‑accused, Painda Khan moved the Add]. Sessions Judge, Gujrat, for bail before arrest. The Addl. Sessions Judge refused bail to Painda Khan apparently on the ground that the allegation against him was that he bad caused injuries to the deceased. He, however, admitted the petitioners to pre‑arrest bail on the ground that they did not cause any injury to the deceased and the complainant only attributed that simple injuries to them.
On a petition under section 497(5), Cr. P.' C. being moved by the complainant for cancellation of bail, the learned Judge in the High Court observed that the petitioners were named in the F. I. R. and a specific role of causing injuries to the complainant was attributed to them. They were accused of the offence under sections 148 and 302/149; P. P. C. and the ground on which the Addl. Sessions Judge bad allowed bail was not available in a case of bail before arrest, but may be relevant after a person has been arrested. He, accordingly, cancelled the bail allowed to the petitioners by the Addl. Sessions Judge.
Before us, Dr. Khalid Ranjha has attempted to agitate the same plea which found favour with the Addl. Sessions Judge. We; however, are entirely in agreement with the High Court that this is not at all a fit case for grant of bail before arrest. No allegation that the petitioners have bee involved in this case on account of political or some similar motive has bee made. They are accused of serious criminal offences and it is yet too early to speculate on the degree of their responsibility in the incident. The learned Judge in the High Court, therefore, rightly cancelled their pre‑arrest bail. The petitioners should, therefore, be taken into custody and they may, if so advised, apply for bail after their arrest to the Sessions Judge after some time.
This petition fails and is dismissed hereby.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer