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.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 408 of 1974, decided on 13th December, 1976.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 8‑11‑1974 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4151/8 of 1974).
‑‑ Ss. 497 & 498‑‑Bail‑Contention that no case under S. 307, Penal Code, 1860 having been made out against petitioner, High Court erred in not enlarging them on bail‑Leave to Appeal stage‑No stage for appreciation of evidence‑High Court, on allegations as they stood, held, cannot be said to have exercised its discretion wrongly‑Leave to appeal refused‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3). [Evidence].
Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for the State
Date of hearing : 13th December, 1974.
.‑The two petitioners herein were alongwith seven others, accused in a case under section 307/148/149, P. P. C. The case was registered on the 29th September, 1974.
The part attributed to the petitioners in this case was that the petitioner No. 1 had given a takwa' blow to Muhammad Khadim and that the peti tioner No. 2 had given a stick blow to one, Fateh Ali. The 'takwa' injury has, however, been found by the Doctor to be of a simple nature.
All the accused applied for bail before the Judge, Lahore, but the latter refused to enlarge them on bail. They then came up to the High Court. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court enlarged the other co‑accused on bail because they had not been charged with having caused any serious injury to anyone but rejected the application of the present petitioners who have .now been in the judicial lock‑up since 1‑10‑1974. They have, therefore, come up to this Court for special leave to appeal.
Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has sought to contend that no case under section 307 had been made out and, therefore, these petitioners should also have been enlarged on bail.
Having heard the learned counsel and perused the F. I. R. we are no in a position to say that the learned Judge in the High Court had exercised his discretion either arbitrarily or capriciously. This is not the stage for the appreciation of evidence but on the allegations as they stand, it cannot be said that the High Court has exercised its discretion wrongly.
The petition is, accordingly, 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