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. 699 of 1980, decided on 25th January, 1981.
(On appeal from the Order of the Lahore High Court, dated 29th November, 1980 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3912/B/80).
S. 498‑Bail‑Contention that only first petitioner having been accused of giving injury on head and other petitioner having been accused giving injury on elbow and subsequent investigation having led to altogether different reports and same unnamed individuals having been responsible for giving fatal blow to deceased, bail should not have been refused‑Held : Injury on elbow likely to be a clerical mistake for injury found on zygomatic region of victim‑Result of subsequent investigation by Police being not consistent inter se not sufficient for calling interference with discretion exercised by High Court‑Leave to appeal refused.
Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 25th January, 1981 .
J.‑The two petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the High Court of Lahore, dated 29‑11‑1980 whereby they were refused bail in a case registered against them under section 302/307/325/149/ 148, P. P. C. at Police Station, Mamun Kanjan, District Faisalabad on 16‑11‑79.
2. The two petitioners along with five others were changed of attacking, injuring and causing the death of Gaul Mohammad. Murderous assault was also committed by the two petitioners and their companions on Bashir. One of them Mohammad Hussain was allegedly armed with .12 bore gun and six others with lathis.
3. The learned Judge in the High Court refused the two petitioners bail after arrest on the ground that they were alleged to have given fatal blows on the head of the victim. The result of subsequent investigation with regard to the implication of others was not readily accepted as a ground for admitting them to bail.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that only Mehmood Akhtar petitioner No. 1 was accused of giving the injury on the head, the other petitioner was accused of given an injury on the elbow. This according to the learned counsel, was not kept in view while declining the bail to them, Further, it is contended that the subsequent investigations have led to altogether different reports and it appears that certain unnamed individuals were responsible for giving fatal blow to the deceased. In this respect our attention has been drawn to the challan submitted in Court.
5. On comparing the first information report and the injury statement we find that what has been taken to be an injury on the left elbow may be clerical mistake for the injury found on the zygomatic region of the victim. We would not, at this stage, like to go into it further. As regards the result of the subsequent investigation by the Police as they are not quite consistent inter se we would not consider them as sufficient for interference with the discretion exercised by the learned Judge in the High Court, the leave to appeal is therefore, refused.
Leave petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer