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.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 21 of 1976, decided on 28th January, 1976.
(On appeal from an order of the Lahore High Court made on 22nd January, 1976 in Cr. Misc. No. 43‑B of 1976).
‑‑ S. 498 and Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑Bail before arrest‑Bail before arrest not a rule in cognizable offences Bail before arrest allowed only when petitioner apprehends arrest due to ulterior motive or some peculiar features of case justifies exercise of discretion in his favour‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 148, 324 & 325.
Bail before arrest is not the rule in cognizable offences, and is to be allowed only when it can be shown that the petitioner apprehends arrest due to some ulterior motives on the part of the authorities or other influential persons, or there are some peculiar features of the case which would justify the exercise of this discretionary power by the High Court Or the Sessions Court.
Qureshi Mahmood Ahmad, Advocate and S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 28th January, 1976.
The three petitioners, alongwith three others, are accused of offences failing under sections 148, 324 and 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code, read with section 149 thereof. Their application for bail before arrest has been dismissed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court by his order dated the 22nd January, 1976. They now seer: special leave to appeal.
The incident is said to have taken place at 8 a. m. on 13th December 1975 in the area of village Panjwarian, in the jurisdiction of Police Station Kharian in Gujrat District. F. I. R. No. 201 was registered at the police station by petitioner Muhammad Akhtar at 8.10 a. m. on the 14th of December, 1975; whereas F. I. R. No. 202 was registered at the same police station at 9 a. m. the same day by one Haji Muhammad Asghar, Both the F. I. Rs. accuse the opposite‑party of having initiated the attack and caused injuries to each other.
It is contended by Mr. Qureshi Mahmood Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Judge in the High Court has fallen in error to ignoring the fact that the first information report made by petitioner Muhammad Akhtar was prior in time to the counter‑report made by Haji Muhammad Akhtar of the opposite party, and that Muhammad Asghar had sustained injuries on account of which right of private defence had accrued to him and to his companions.
The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, overlook the fact that bail before arrest is not the rule in cognizably; offences, and is to be allowed only when it can be shown that the petitioner apprehends arrest due to some ulterior motives on the part of the authorities or other influential persons, or there are some peculiar features of the case which would justify the exercise of this discretionary power by the High Court or the Sessions Court. In the present case, no such features appear to be present. An incident has admittedly taken place between the parties, in which the petitioners are accused of having caused injuries to Muhammad Sadiq of the opposite party. In the normal course of criminal law the petitioners can legitimately ask for bail only after their arrest and not before arrest.
On this view of the matter, we see no justification to interfere and accordingly dismiss this petition,
Leave refused,
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer