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 No. 7-R of 1980, decided on 7th May, 1980.
(On appeal from the order, dated 30th January, 1980 of the High Court of Sind at Karachi in Miscellaneous Application No. 23 of 1980).
-- S. 497(5)-Cancellation of bail-Conflict existing to opinion of doctor expressed in original medico-legal certificate and subse quent statement made by him in Court--Doctor apologising to High Court and placing himself at mercy of Court-High Court in view of his young age warning him not to play in hands of parties and give false evidence in Court-Case prima facie seeming to be one of suborning of evidence, petitioner, held, lost entitlement to concession of bail.
Raja Muhammad Zafarul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 7th May, 1980.
-Leave to appeal is sought from an order dated 30th January, 1980 of the Sind High Court whereby the bail granted to the petitioner in a case under section 307, P. P. C. was cancelled.
Earlier the High Court had refused bail to the petitioner. He had challenged the order of refusal passed by the High Court in this Court through a petition for leave to appeal which was dismissed on 29th of April, 1979, It was however, observed that a fresh petition for bail might be moved in the lower Court after the submission of challan.
The petitioner accordingly made a fresh application which was allowed by the Sessions Court on 11th July, 1979, mainly on the consideration that although it was a case of injuries caused by an effective fire-arm shot, there was some conflict between medical evidence and the prosecution case. On complainant's application for cancellation of bail in the High Court it was argued that there was conflict in the opinion of the Doctor expressed in the original medico-legal certificate and the subse quent statement of the Medical Officer. The doctor was summoned in the High Court. He seems to have made certain statement whereas the High Court recorded the following observations : _
"At the very outset, the Doctor apologised to be forgiven and placed himself at the mercy of the Court. He is very young medical officer and was warned not to play in the hands of the parties and give false evidence in the Court."
Learned counsel has contended that notwithstanding the conduct of the Doctor in the High Court, the question of bail could be determined on 4 the basis of nature of injury alleged to have been caused by the petitioner. He also contended that even according to the original medical certificate, the petitioner would have been found entitled to bail and that the High Court should not have cancelled the bail granted by the learned lower Court simply on the basis of the conduct of the Doctor for which the petitioner was not responsible.
After hearing the learned counsel, prima facie it seems to be a case of suborning of evidence on account whereof the petitioner lost the entitlement if any to the concession of bail. This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. This petition is accordingly 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