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 Review Petition No. 4/R of 1978 in Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 114‑R of 1977, decided on 5th October 1978.
(On review from the order dated 18th February 1978 passed by this Court).
----Ss. 497 & 498‑Bail‑Injured persons asserting (during investiga tion) fire‑arm injuries having been caused by petitioner and not by other accused‑Petitioner accused of causing fire‑arm injuries allegedly resulting in two deaths and injuries to three others‑Case of other two accused allowed bail appearing to be distinguishable from that of petitioner‑Other two accused possibly allowed bail erroneously but such fact ipso facto not entitling petitioner to same concession‑No case, held, made out for review‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art. 188.‑[Review‑Bail].
Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 5th October 1978.
‑This petition seeks a review of the order made by this Court on the 14th of December 1977, whereby Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal bearing No. 114‑R of 1977, seeking bail for the petitioner in a pending murder case, was dismissed.
The case against the petitioner and several others was registered on the 20th of April 1977, in regard to an occurrence in which two persons died and three others received fire‑arm injuries. In the First Information Report it was alleged that the petitioner and three other persons, namely, Zeba, Ayub and Fazal Dad were using fire‑arm. It appears, however, that during the investigation the injured persons attributed fire‑arm injuries only to the present petitioner, and alleged that the other accused were either throwing brick‑bats or using blunt weapons. In a detailed order made on the 14th of September 1977, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, distinguished the case of the present petitioner from that of co‑accused Zeba and Fazal Dad, while Ayub is still absconding. He, accordingly, allowed bail to Zeba and Fazal Dad but declined the same privilege to the petitioner. This order was upheld by a learned Judge of the Surd High Court on‑the 25th of October 1977. We also declined to interfere in the matter, for the reason that the fire arm injuries had been directly attributed to the present petitioner by the injured persons themselves.
Review is sought on the ground that we omitted to take note of the fact that similar allegations had been made in the First Information Report against three other co‑accused, namely, Zeba, Fazat Dad and Ayub. but Zeba and Fazal Dad had been allowed bail while the petitioner had been erroneously denied this concession.
It is clear that there is no merit in this submission. We have already stated that the injured persons have asserted, during the course of investiga tion, that the fire‑arm injuries had been caused by the petitioner and not by Zeba, Fazal Dad and Ayub. Even if that was not so, the fact remains that the petitioner has been accused of causing fire‑arm injuries which are alleged to have resulted in two deaths and injuries to three others. Zeba and Fazal Dad may have been erroneously allowed bail, but that would not ipso facto entitle the present petitioner to the same concession. However, as the record stands, the case of the other two accused appears to be distinguishable from that of the petitioner.
It will be seen, therefore, that no case is made out for review. The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby 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