Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 4‑P of 1982, decided on 16th November, 1983.

(Against the judgment of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 9th September, 1981 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 561 of 1981).

---Art. 185 (3)‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 497 & 498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1980), Ss. 307/148/149‑Bail‑Accused charged for offence under S. 307/148/149, P. P. C. Co‑accused of petitioner, numbering five, already granted bail on ground that their shots had not proved effective Accused petitioner admitted to bail by High Court inter alia on ground that identification of his shot was a matter of further inquiry‑Held, discretion exercised by High Court cannot be interfered with.

Abdur Rehman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.

Jan Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record and Jalaluddin Khan, Advocate‑on -Record for Respondent No. 1.

Bashir Ullah Khan, Addl. A.-G. for the State.

Date of hearing : 16th November, 1983.

Leave to appeal was granted to complainant Gul Sher against an order of the Peshawar High Court, dated 9‑9‑1981 granting bail after arrest to Younus Khan who is charged alongwith 5 others for firing at the complainant seven or eight shots and injuring him on 23‑2‑1981 where upon a case under section 307/148/149, P. P. C. was registered at Police Station Rustam, District Mardan.

The respondent was the only person out of the named accused whose shot was said to have injured the complainant or to have proved effective. He was refused bail by the Magistrate 1st Class on 9‑7‑1981 and by the Sessions Judge on 21‑7‑1981 but was admitted to bail by the Peshawar High Court on 9‑9‑1981 inter alia on the ground that identification of his shot out of seven or eight was a matter of further inquiry. The other co‑accused of the respondent were admitted to bail at an earlier stage on the ground that their shots had not proved effective.

We find from the record that the respondent was charged alongwith five others for firing at the complainant and injuring him. He was distinguished from the other co‑accused in that the complainant named him as the person whose shot proved effective on him, though his was not the first shot fired. It cannot be said in the circumstances that the discretion exercised by the High Court in the matter necessarily required interference. No case for interference is made out and hence the appeal is dismissed.

S. Q. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.