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 Bail Applications Nos. 1044 and 1052 of 1984; decided on 4th November, 1984.
---S.497/498‑‑Baii‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑No injuries alleged to have been caused by accused‑‑Most of co‑accused already on bail but accused was refused bail because in their applications no allegations against police was made‑‑Interim bail confirmed in circumstances.
Hassan Inamullah and A. Hafeez Lakho with Rasheed Rizvi for Applicant.
Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, A.A.‑G. for the State.
I propose to deal with Criminal Bail Applications Nos. 1044/1984 and 1052/1984 by this single order as these two applications arise out of the same incident and the same case.
The learned Additional Advocate‑General has no objection to the confirmation of the interim order granting bail to the applicants. He states that no injuries are alleged to have been caused by these applicants and in fact there was a huge crowd of 40 persons and most of them absconding. It is also stated that most of the accused persons have A been granted bail by the Sessions Judge, Karachi, but these applicants were refused bail because in their applications allegations against the police had not been made. The learned Advocates, however, state that it shall be unjustified to keep the applicants in custody and police wants to arrest them with the purpose of maltreating them.
Interim bail is confirmed.
M. Y. H. Interim bail accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer