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. 110/R of 1983, decided on 18th February, 1984.
(On appeal from the Order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 29‑11‑1983 in Cr.M. No.395/B of 1983).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 497 & 498‑ Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑Bail in murder case‑‑High Court distinguishing two accused‑respondents, out of four accused, in a manner which could not be deemed as illegal or against any principle‑‑Mere' fact that there can be different appreciation of facts for bail‑‑Held, cannot be a ground for interference by Supreme Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Yusuf Ali Khan, Bar‑at‑Law, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Sardar M. Ishaq, Advocate Supreme Court for the Caveator.
Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Inamul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court Advocate‑General, Punjab for the State.
.‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought from order dated 29‑11‑1983 of the Lahore High Court; whereby respon dents Nos.l and 2 were allowed bail in a case registered under section 302 , read with section 34 , P . P . C .
The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to show that the two respondents having been attributed a definite role each, should not have been granted bail. He advanced arguments on merits and also cited case‑law. He also relied on Modi's Medical Jurisprudence to show the difference between abrasions caused by a fall and those caused by a stick blow.
Both the learned counsel for the Caveators (the said respondents and the State) opposed the petition and also argued on merits of the case.
The learned Judge in the High Court has distinguished the case of the two-respondents‑‑total accused being four, in a manner which cannot be deemed as illegal or against any principle. The mere fact that the reason be different appreciation of facts for bail, cannot, be a ground for interference by this Court. The cases cited by the' learned counsel are distinguishable. There is no force in this petition.) It is accordingly dismissed.
S. Q. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer