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.109 of 1978, decided on 29th April, 1978.
(On appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 26‑2‑1978 of the Lahore High Court in Cr. Misc. No.439‑B/1978).
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of. 1860), S.302/34‑‑Bail‑‑High Court found to have exercised discretion vested in it properly and not to have rejected application of petitioners for bail on capricious or arbitrary grounds‑‑Bail refused.
Ch. Muhammad Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M. Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Ejaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record and Asad Hussain Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Date of hearing: 29th April, 1978.
.‑‑A case was registered against the petitioners alongwith Asghar Ali, Muhammad Hanif and Muhammad Younas, under F.I.R. No.116/249, dated 6‑8‑1977 by the P.S. Hujra, for offence under section 302/379/34, P.P.C. Muhammad Hanif and Muhammad Younas have been granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal on 10‑9‑1977. The petitioners, since then, are in judicial lock‑up.
The prosecution case is that the deceased Muhammad Sharif was present near the Primary School and waiting for the preparation for his and his companions votes. It is alleged that both the petitioners, while armed with a revolver, came alongwith Asghar Ali who was carrying a rifle. The deceased, on seeing the accused party, started running away. According to the F.I.R., all the accused ran after him. The petitioners also ran after the deceased while firing at him. They caught hold of him, and grappled with the deceased. Thereupon, accused Asghar Ali fired at the deceased whereby he died. The petitioners moved an application for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, which was dismissed on 23‑10‑1977. the matter was then taken to the Lahore High Court, and a learned Single Judge of the High Court, in Criminal Miscellaneous; No. 439/B/1978, considered the matter, and has come to the conclusion that section 34 applied to the facts of the present case, and the petitioners are not entitled to bail. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said order.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has exercised the discretion vested in him, properly and has not rejected the application of the petitioners for bail, on capricious or arbitrary grounds. The F.I.RA shows that the petitioners ran after the deceased, caught hold of him, and grappled with him, and thus facilitated Asghar Ali to fire a short at the deceased. Prima facie, on these facts, the provisions of section 34 are attracted.
In these circumstances, we do not see any reason to grant bail to the petitioners. The petition is 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