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. 43 of 1978, decided on 8th June, 1978.
(Appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 10‑1‑1978 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4748/8 of 1977).
‑‑‑S.497(5)__Penal Code (XLV of 1860), s. 302/307/148/149‑‑Bail‑ Cancellation of‑‑Accused granted bail on ground that their intention was not to commit murder and their conduct required further enquiry‑ High Court having properly exercised its discretion, order not open to interference.
Yasin Wattoo, Advocate Supreme Court and Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Manzoor H. Sial, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 8th June, 1978.
‑A case under section 148/149/307, P.P.C. was registered against respondents Nos. 1 to 9 and Sajawal Shah for causing injuries to Saidan Shah and others of the complainant party in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly formed by them on 28‑7‑1977 on a long‑standing dispute about the possession of land.
According to F.I.R. Saidan Shah suffered a blow at the hands of Sajawal Shah and died later on. In view of this the case was converted to 148/149/302/307, P.P.C. The allegation against the respondents is that they had attacked the companions of the deceased and had given them blunt weapon injuries. Respondents and Sajawal Shah moved a bail application, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 16‑10‑1977. The respondents then moved the Lahore High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4748/ B of 1977 and a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court granted them bail by order dated 10‑1‑1978. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said Order.
In support of the petition, we have heard Mr. Yasin Wattoo and we are satisfied that this is not a fit case for the cancellation of bail. The High Court was right in observing that the intention of the respondents was not to commit murder and their conduct requires further inquiry. In our opinion the High Court has exercised the discretion vested in it properly and this is not a fit case for interference. The petition is dismissed.
M.I Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer