Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

MUSHTAQ versus STATE


Article 185 (3) Criminal Procedure Code (V9 1898), Section 497 Bail was passed, and the session judge's High Court granted such order was not appropriate because the Supreme Court changed the request for leave to appeal in the regular appeal. Supreme Court remands bail for accused accused of deadly blows
1983 S C M R 662

Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Actg. C J., Nasim Hasan Shah and

M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ

MUSHTAQ AND OTHERS‑Appellants

versus

THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents

Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 1982, decided on 22nd December, 1982.

(Against the Order of Lahore High Court dated 20th November, 1982 passed in Cr. Misc. 729‑B/1982/BWP).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑

‑‑ Art. 185 (3)‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497 Bail‑Accused on bail granted by Sessions Judge‑High Court can celling bail on ground of non‑appearance of accused on having been served‑Leave to appeal‑Contention that no specific order for appearance of accused passed as such order was not proper Supreme Court converting petition for leave to appeal into regular appeal declined bail to accused persons having been attributed to fatal blows‑Remaining accused enlarged on bail by Supreme court.

Raja Afrasiab Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with S. M. Idrees Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.

Muhammad Anwar Bhinder, Advocate Supreme Court with M. A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record and S. D. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 22nd December, 1982.

ORDER

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, ACTG. C. J.

‑‑Bail was granted to the petitioners by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur but on application by Liaqat Ali complainant it was cancelled by the High Court vide the impugned order dated 20th November, 1982 mainly on the ground that the accused petitioners did not turn up in spite of having been served.

The petitioners seek leave to appeal against this order.

2. The main contention urged by the counsel for the appellants before us was that there was no specific order by the learned Judge in Chamber requiring the appellants to appear before the Court.

3. We have, however, heard the learned counsel for the parties on merits and gone through the relevant documents including the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, granting them bail. Without making any observation which may prejudice the case of either party we are of the view that Mushtaq Ahmad and Rafi, appel lants, who have been attributed the fatal blows are not entitled to grant of bail. Consequently, we convert this petition into appeal and dismiss it qua Mushtaq and Muhammad Rafi appellants.

4. The remaining appellants are entitled to grant of bail. The order of the High Court cancelling their bail is, therefore, set aside and the earlier order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge granting bail to them is restored.

Bail cancelled.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
pakistani advocates Pindi bhohri lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.