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. K-36 of 1981, decided on 26th August, 1981.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 17-6-1981 of the Sind High Court at Karachi in Cr. Bail Application No. 441 of 1981).
_S. 497-Bail-High Court releasing respondent on bail on ground of case being one of further inquiry, whether offence ' committed by respondent fell under Exception I to S. 300, Penal Code, 1860 or under S. 302 of such Code and whether respondent of 15 years of age as opined by doctor or about 16 years and 10 months as recorded in birth certificate--Grounds given by High Court in impugned order while granting bail indicating case being indeed one of further inquiry, discretion exercised by High Court, held, pro perly exercised and no ground made out for interference by Supreme Court.
Aftab Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate on Record for Petitioner.
N. 1. Memon, Additional Advocate-General (Sind) for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 26th August 1981.
.-This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 17-6-1981 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court at Karachi releasing Muhammad Ismail, respondent No. 2 herein, on bail on the ground that the case was one of further injury, namely, requiring determination whether the offence committed by the said respon dent fell under Exception 1 of section 300, P. P. C., or it fell under sec tion 302, P. P. C., as all edged by the prosecution. A further matter, which required further inquiry, was whether the said respondent was 15 years of age as opined in the medical evidence or about 16 years and 10 months of age, as recorded in the birth certificate.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate-General Sind (who has supported the order of the learned Judge of the High Court), we feel that the grounds given by the learned Single Judge in his impugned order while granting bail indicate that the case, indeed, on the facts herein, was one of further inquiry and, there fore, the discretion exercised, by him, in allowing bail in this case, has been properly exercised. No ground, therefore, is made out for interfering with the said order.
This petition, therefore, 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