Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition No. 44 of 1982, decided on 17th February, 1982.

(On appeal from the order dated 25‑1‑1982 of the Lahore High Court passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 22‑B of 1982).

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑

‑‑‑ S. 498 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑ Bail‑Leave to appeal‑Original First Information Report though containing only a general allegation of accused party having come armed with dangs and inflicted injuries on complainant and no specific allegation made of accused petitioner having carried a dang or inflicted injury, yet in view of High Court's finding as to evidence having prima facie supported prosecution case and no question of, violation of a principle of law relevant to bail matters having arisen, interference with exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by High Court declined and rejection of bail application upheld‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 394.

Rana Abdul Majid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Walayat Umar Chaudhry Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing : 17th February, 1982.

M. S. H. QURHBHI, J.

‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the order of the High Court rejecting their application for bail in a case under section 394, P. P. C. The petitioners and their co‑accused Muhammad ' Rafi are alleged to have tried to take possession of a plot of land from the complainant and in the process to have inflicted dang blows on him and to have forcibly removed a timepiece and a tape‑recorder containing a radio, belonging to him. It appears that Muhammad Ishaque, com plainant in the case, had subsequently made a supplementary statement favouring Muhammad Rafi, alleging that he was empty‑handed and had only raised' a lalkara. It is submitted that co‑accused Muhammad Rafi, who is on bail granted by the trial Court, is a crippled person who could not carry or wield a stick and as such the assertion qua him made in the F. I. R. was false, and that on account of two versions being given by the same complainant, the benefit should have gone to the present petitioners too.

2. We find that the original F. I. R. had contained only a general allegation that the accused party had come armed with dangs and had inflicted injuries on the complainant. It had not been specifically alleged that Muhammad Rafi had carried a dang or bad inflicted injury. The learned Judge in the High Court considered the petitioner's contentions but had come to the view that the evidence so far collected, prima facie, supported the prosecution case. In the circumstance, we are not inclined to interfere with the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction by the High Court, particularly when no question of violation of a principle of law relevant to a bail matter arises. The petition is dismissed.

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.