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. 355 of 1975, decided on 13th June, 1977.
‑‑‑ S. 497(5)‑Bail‑High Court finding no direct evidence against accused respondent and F.I.R. having been lodged after two months of disappearance of alleged abductee and victim of murder‑High Court also not attaching much importance to alleged extra judicial confession of respondent‑View taken by High Court not shown to be erroneous‑Counsel for petitioner also not in a position to state High Court, held, perfectly justified in granting bail to respondent accused in circumstances‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3).
Sh. Abdul Mannan, Advocate Supreme, Court of Pakistan instructed by S. Alim Ahmad Malik (absent), Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
M. A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record and Ch. Ghulam Sarwar, Advocate, Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.
Nemo for the State
Date of hearing: 13th June 1977.
, J.‑This petition is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 15‑8‑1975 by which the respondent Muhammad Ali son of Barkat Ali has been granted bail.
It is alleged against the respondent that he, in conspiracy with Mst. Hajran, abducted Mukhtar Ali, husband of Hajran, and killed the latter. In this connection, F. I. R. No. 89 was recorded on 26‑4‑1974. On this complaint the respondent was arrested. Later on he moved an application under section 497 read with section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in the High Court praying that he may be enlarged on bail pending the decision of the case against him.
A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court considered hi application, and has come to the conclusion that there is no direct evidence against the respondent in the case, and the F. I. R. was lodged after two months of the disappearance of Mukhtar Ali alleged to have been murdered. He also did not prima facie attach much importance to the alleged extra judicial confession made by the respondent.
Sh. Abdul Mannan, the learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to satisfy us that the view taken by the Lahore High Court is erroneous. His main grievance is that the learned Single Judge should not have observed that there was direct evidence against the respondent. He conceded that the occurrence took place in 1975 and the case is still pending against the respondent. The learned counsel was not in a position to inform us whether the committal proceedings are continuing or have ended.
In these circumstances we are satisfied that the High Court was perfectly justified in granting the bail to the respondent. We do not consider it a fit case for interference. Accordingly, the petition is 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