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. 270 of 1976, decided on 28th November 1977.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 4th May, 1977 in Criminal Miscellaneous 1386/B of 1976)
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑
----Ss.497 & 498‑Bail‑Deceased according to First Information Report murdered by accused respondents because of having been carry ing on affairs with wife of first respondent‑Bail granted by High Court in view of allegations made in First Information Report‑Accused having been allowed bail in view of deceased having been carrying on with first respondent's wife and occurrence according to F. I. R, having taken place in house of respondent in early hours of morning, no case, held, made out for interfering with exercise of discretion by High Court.
Q. M. Salim, Advocate instructed by Syed Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate on‑Record for Petitioner.
Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Nemo for Respondent No. 3.
Date of hearing : 28th November, 1977.
‑‑The petitioner is the uncle of one Ashiq Hussain, and according to the F. I. R. lodged by him, Ashiq Hussain was murdered by the respondents because Ashiq Hussain was having an affair with the wife of the first respondent. The respondents were arrested in due course and sought bail, which was granted by the Lahore High Court by its order, dated 4‑5‑1976. The ground on which bail was sought by the respondents was that Ashiq Hussain had been caught by them committing adultery with the wife of the first respondent. The learned Single Judge of the High Court granted bail in view of the allegations in the F. I. R. Hence this petition for leave.
The question of bail was in the discretion of the High Court and as pointed out .by the learned Judge, the petitioner's case in the F. I. R. was that his nephew was carrying on with the first respondent's wife. Secondly, according to the F. I. R. the occurrence took place in the house of the respondents in the early hours of the morning. Therefore, in the circumstances, no case has been made out for interfering with the exercise of discre tion by the High Court in favour of the respondents. Mr. Salim's real apprehension, however, was that the observations, in the impugned order might affect the case of the respondents in the Sessions Court, there fore, we would clarify that observations in a bail order are necessarily of a tentative nature and the case against the respondents will be decided by the Sessions Court on the basis of the evidence of motive before it. With these observations 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