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. 170‑R of 1982, decided on 15th November, 1982.
(Against the order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi, Bench in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 412‑B of 1982, dated 17‑10‑1982).
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --
‑‑ Ss. 497 & 498 read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 307/ 148/149‑Bail‑Murder‑Cross‑case High, Court's order refusing bail to petitioners offering from no legal infirmity such as requiring inter ference by Supreme Court ‑ Mere fact that in cross‑case persons charged for having caused injuries have been released on bail‑Held, no ground for releasing petitioners on bail particularly when allegations against them are more serious‑Leave to appeal refused‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3).
Abdul Hakim Khan. Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M. Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 15th November, 1982.
‑The two petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 17‑10‑1982 whereby their application for bail on charges under section 302/307/149/148, P. P. C. was rejected.
The prosecution case, in brief, against the petitioners was that they along-with ten others attached the complainant party. Imranuddin fired a shot killing Muhammad Arshad. Asrar gave a toka blow on the head of Shada which he survived. The other companions of the petitioners inflicted injuries on other seven persons.
The learned Judge in the High Court while rejecting the bail application held that the case against them was such that bail could not be granted. There was a direct charge against Imranuddin of firing a pistol shot killing thereby Muhammad Arshad and against Asrar of having given a toka blow on the head after receiving which Shada survived.
The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks bail on two grounds. Firstly it is contended that on the cross‑case filed by Farman an inquiry was held by a ‑Magistrate and in his report under section 202 of the Cr. P. C. he has reported that though Imranuddin does not get absolved from causing the death of Muhammad Arshad, some of the members of the complainant party were also responsible for the fight and the rioting and the injuries that were caused in the same occurrence. The other ground taken is that as in the cross‑case the accused charged by the petitioners and their companions have been admitted to bail the petitioners should also receive similar or equal treatment in the matter of bail.
We have attended to all the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and find that the High. Court's order suffers from no legal infirmity such as may require interference by this Court. The reasons given by the, High Court are sound and merely because in the cross‑case the persons charged for having caused injuries have been released on bail is no ground for releasing the petitioners on bail, particularly so when the allegations against them are more serious. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer