Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition‑for Special Leave to Appeal No. 241 of 1978, decided on 3rd August, 1978.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 24‑6‑1978, in Cr. Misc. No. 887/B of 1978).

--S. 497/498‑Bail‑Petitioner, according to F. I. R., came out with a '12 bore gun and fired with it resulting in injuries on forehead and face of deceased's sister‑Stage of bail‑Not one to sift prosecution evidence in minute details‑Petitioner having injuries on his body and such fact showing his participation in occurrence‑Two Courts below of view release of petitioner on bail being not justified and no legal or factual error discoverable in such approach‑High Court also found to have examined distinguishing features of case of each accused and any principle of law warranting interference by Supreme Court in such matter not shown to have been violated‑Petition dismissed in circum stances.

Dr. A. Basit, Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing: 3rd August, 1978.

.‑The petitioner is involved alongwith three others in a case reported in F.I.R. No. 253, dated 2‑11‑1979; at Police Station, Pattoki, District Kasur, under section 302/ 307/34, P. P. C. for murder of Muhammad Rashid son of Qasim Ali and for causing injuries on the forehead and face of Mst. Sharifa with fire‑arm. The petitioner applied for bail which was refused by the learned Sessions Judge on 22‑2‑197 . The petitioner then approached the High Court by means of a Criminal. Miscella neous Application No. 887/B of 1978 but without any success as the same was dimissed by a learned. Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 2I‑6‑1978. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same.

2. It was argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner has not been attributed any fatal shot to the deceased and therefore, he deserved bail. The contention has no merit. The petitioner has injuries on‑his body which shows his participation in the occurrence and as a matter of fact this aspect of the case was not denied by the learned counsel. The petitioner according to the F.I.R. is the person who came out with a 12 bore gun and is said to have fired with it which resulted in injuries on the forehead and face of Mst. Sharifan sister of the deceased. It is not‑ a stage to sift the prosecution evidence in minute details. The two courts below after attending to the various aspects of the case were of the view that it was not justified to release the petitioner on bail: We have not been able to find any legal or factual error in the approach of the High Court. When confronted with this situation the learned counsel submitted that a cross F. I. R. has also been registered about the same occurrence for the injuries caused to the petitioner and Mst. Khurshid (niece), Mst. Fateh Bibi (mother) and Muhammad Sharif brother of a the petitioner. He submitted that when there were two versions about the same occurrence, the petitioner should have been released on bail as some other co‑accused namely Shaukat and Muhammad Sharif accused in F.I.R. under consideration have already been released ‑on bail. The contention has no merit. The High Court has examined the distinguishing features of the case of each accused and we have not been shown that in doing so the High Court violated any principle of law warranting interference by this Court in matters of this nature. As the learned counsel has not been able to point out violation of any legal or any other principle we find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same.

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.