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. 368 of 1975, decided on 22nd January, 1976.
(On appeal from judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 2nd October, 1975 in Criminal Miscellaneous NO 387‑B of 1975).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/148/149‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 497 & 498‑‑Murder‑‑Bail‑‑Accused respondents named as among assailants, of deceased‑‑Report of Investi gating Officer based upon statements of certain witnesses weighing with High Court in granting bail to accused‑respondents‑‑High Court observing that it created doubt as to respondents, being concerned in transaction which required further enquiry‑‑‑Matter being discretion impugned order cannot be said to be arbitrary or capricious as to lay a foundation for interference‑‑No prosecution witness examined although 11 months having gone by since submission of challan‑‑Leave to appeal against grant of bail refused.
Raja Mahmood Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1976.
J.‑‑ The first three respondents herein alongwith two others are accused in a case under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. on the basis of F.1.R. lodged et 5‑15 p.m. at P.S. Piarianwali, Tehsil Phalia District Gujrat as a sequal to an incident in village Sangpal, at a distance of 6 miles from the P.S. in the course of which Ali Muhammad was killed.
On an application moved by the three respondents, they were released on bail by the High Court vide order, dated 2nd October, 1975 on the ground that the Investigating officer on the basis of the statements made during the investigation by certain employees of the Forest Department, were reported to be innocent and it was recommended that they be showed in column No.2 of the challan. The recommendation was however, not supported by the prosecution agency and the respon dents were shown accused in column No. 3 alongwith the other two accused who according to learned counsel have been refused bail.
The petitioner who is complainant in the case seeks leave against the order of the High Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the High Court allowed bail to the respondents for reason which virtually amounted to an arbitrary exercise of discretion in their favour and that in any case, the reason which actually weighed with the learned Judge amounted to no reason at all. It was stressed that the report of the Investigating Officer was not accepted by the higher authorities and in any event the report could not be treated as decisive in the matter.
We have been taken through the F.I.R. in which no doubt the three respondents have been named as among the assailants of the deceased. But it is wrong to suggest that the order of the High Court was not based on any reason or was arbitrary. As pointed out already what weighed with the learned Judge was the report of the Investigating Officer which was based upon the statements of certain employees of the Forest Department. Therefore, the learned Judge was justified to observe that it created a doubt as to the respondents being concerned in the transaction which required further enquiry. The matter being entirely discretionary, we do not consider that it can be reasonably said that the impugned order is arbitrary or capricious as to lay a foundation for interference by this Court.
In the course of arguments, it also transpired that although about 11 months have gone by since the challan was submitted, not a single prosecution witness has been examined in the case so far. This in our opinion, is an additional reason against interference by this Court.
The petition is dismissed.
S.Q. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer