Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

SARWAR versus THE STATE


Section 497 (2) Approval of Bail, Principal Rule of Expected Quantity of Punishment but Determination That the Punishment Was Really Provided for Crime, Section 304, Part I, pp. Whether or not a prohibited clause under C falls under guilt. With a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment for life and under Part II, further prosecution will come under the Prohibited Clause, denied bail, in circumstances

P L D 1982 Lahore 809

Before Abaid Ullah Khan, J

SARWAR‑Petitioner'

versus

THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1285/B of 1982, decided on 2nd June, 1982.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑

S. 497 (2)‑Grant of bail, principle governing of‑Not expected amount of sentence but sentence actually provided for offence, held, matters for determining whether or not offence falls within prohibited clause‑Offence under S. 304, Part I, P. P. C. being punishable with imprisonment for life and under Part II with maximum sentence of 10 years case, held further, would fall within prohibited clause‑Bail declined, in circumstances.

Raja Muhammad Sabir for Petitioner.

Shamas Mahmood for the State.

ORDER

The learned counsel for the petitioner, without conceding, has argued that at worst the petitioner's action could be assumed to constitute an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. He has contended that as ultimately the

punishment awarded to the petitioner is expected to be less than ten years his case is not covered by the prohibited clause of section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code and as such he is entitled to be released on bail. It is not the expected amount of sentence, but the sentence which is actually provided for the offence which matters for determining whether or not the offence fall within the prohibited clause. The offence under Part I of section 304 is A punishable with imprisonment for life and an offence under Part II fetches the maximum sentence of ten years. Therefore, it clearly falls within the pro hibited clause. Accordingly the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. His bail petition is rejected. ‑

2. However, as the petitioner is a young man of 20 years of age and has been in detention for more than eight months, it is desirable that the case in hand whose, challan has reached the Court of Session, Jhang, should be decided by an early date. The learned Sessions Judge or the learned Addi tional Sessions Judge, Jhang, seized with the trial of the petitioner's case will dispose if of within four months.

s. G. D. 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.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
family advocate from Ukba lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.