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.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 45‑R of 1979, decided on 24th June, 1979.
(On appeal from the order of the Peshawar High Court, dated 9th of June 1979, in Cr. Misc. 373/79).
----S. 497‑Bail‑All petitioners prima facie involved in commission of offence‑No flaw in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by High Court pointed out‑Contention that High Court having refused bail on ground of it being too early to say as to which one of petitioners responsible for smuggling and to what extent case, hence, one of further inquiry‑Not correct‑Case, held, not fit for interference by Supreme Court‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3).
Zafar Mahmood, Senior Advocate and Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 24th June, 1979.
.‑Muhammad Jan, Bahadur Sher and Gul Bar seek leave to appeal against an order of learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court dated 9th of June, 1979, dismissing the petitioners' bail application.
The petitioners are accused of smuggling and were caught during a Nakabandi by the police on 31st of March, 1979, on the Peshawar‑Kohat Road. Muhammad Jan petitioner was driving the truck while Bahadur Sher and Gul Bar were sitting with him on the front seat. The number plates of the truck had been removed and on search the truck was found to contain 25 Air‑Conditioners, a huge quantity of Chars and foreign cloth as well as other contraband items.
The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the learned High Court Judge has refused bail on the ground, that it is too early to say as to which one of the petitioners is responsible for' smuggling and to what extent, it is a case of further inquiry. We are not impressed by this contention. On the material before us all the three petitioners are prima facie involved in the commission of the offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any flaw in the exercise of his discretionary jurisdiction by the learned High Court Judge.
We do not therefore consider it to be a fit case for interference with the order of the High Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, if so advised, he may apply for bail after some more material becomes available.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer