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. 162‑R of 1982, decided on 30th November, 1982.
(Against the order of the High Court of Lahore, Multan Bench dated 20‑9‑1982 in Cr. Misc. No. 173/B,/82).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑
< [if supportLists]>- ----Art. 185(3) read with Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 497 & 498‑Bail‑Matters sought to be made basis for grant of bail to petitioner already considered by two courts below' Appreciation of arguments by courts not suffering from any legal error or infirmity Held, does not call for interference by Supreme Court.
Ch. Abdul Rehman, Bar‑at‑Law, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State
Date of bearing : 30th November, 1982.
SHAFIUR RAHMAN,
J.‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court dated 20‑9‑1982 whereby the refusal of bail to him by the Sessions Judge on 13tb June, 1982 was affirmed.
The petitioner along-with 2 others is charged for the murder of one Muhammad Aslam and for injuring Rehmat Ali. The specific role attributed to the petitioner is that he fired a shot‑gun hitting the deceased on the belly. The fire‑arm injuries were found on the belly of the deceased and nine pellets were recovered from inside the body.
The Sessions Judge refused bail to the petitioner on the ground‑ that the contentions related to the appreciation of evidence of a highly disputed nature which could not be undertaken at that initial stage.
The High Court re‑examined the submissions of the petitioner and held that it did not justify the grant of bail to the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has made the same controversial facts the basis for grant of bail to the petitioner which have already been considered by the two courts and rejected at this stage. The High Court went so far as to observe that "the contention raised by the learned counsel that it is a case of two versions and that Ghulam Rasool and another have also participated in the occurrence has been found false during the investi gation."
We find that the matters which are sought to be made the basis for grant of bail to the petitioner have already been considered by the two courts and their appreciation of arguments does not suffer from any legal error or infirmity such as may require interference by this Court. It appears that the discretion has been properly exercised. Hence leave to appeal is 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