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 No. 440 of 1981, decided on 18th January, 1982.
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 26‑10‑1981 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2577/13 of 1981).
‑‑‑ S. 498‑A‑Anticipatory bail‑Accused involved in another murder case and not appearing in case in hand on account of his reported abscondence in such other case‑Accused, held, hardly deserves to remain on bail in case in hand.
----S. 498‑A‑Pre‑arrest bail‑Specific allegation levelled against accused of having come armed with a carbine, fired and caused injury at thigh of deceased and having resorted to firing while fleeing along with other accused‑Lower Courts letting out accused on pre‑arrest bail for reason that presence of three fire‑arm injuries at same point on person of deceased" demanded some caution"‑Reason advanced for enlarge ment on pre‑arrest bail, held, not sufficient ground for purpose Anticipatory bail cancelled.
Q. M. Salim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhary, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 2.
Muhammad Ikram Butt, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State. .
Date of hearing : 18th January 1982.
‑By this petition, the petitioner, who is complainant in the case, is seeking leave to appeal from the order dated 26‑10‑1981 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby he refused to cancel the bail before arrest granted by the Court of Session, Lahore, to respon dents Rashid Ahmed and Liaqat Ali in a case under section 302/307/149 and 148, P. P. C.
2. At the initial hearing of the petition by this Court on 22‑12‑1981, a notice had been ordered to be issued to the aforesaid respondents directing them to appear personally before this Court today. Rashid Ahmad respon dent is not present and it is brought to the notice of this Court that he is absconding in a case relating to the murder of Akbar Shah P. W., which took place on the 4th of this month. As he is involved in another murder case and has not appeared on account of his reported abscondence in that case, he hardly deserves to remain on bail in this case.
3. Respondent Liaqat Ali has been produced in custody as he is stated to have been arrested in another case under section 307, P. P. C. There is specific allegation against him in the F. I. R. that he had come armed with carbine, had fired thereby causing injury at the left thigh of the deceased, and had along with his co‑accused resorted to firing while fleeing from the scene. The reason which prevailed with the Court of Session and the High Court in letting him to be on pre‑arrest bail is that the presence of three fire‑arm injuries at the same point on the person of the deceased "demanded some caution". We are of the view that this was not a sufficient ground for grant of pre‑arrest bail.
4. We accordingly convert this petition into appeal and allow the same, with the result that the anticipatory bail allowed to respondents Rashid Ahmad and Liaqat Ali is cancelled.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer