Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

SOHAIL versus STATE


Section 497 (5) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Section 302/34 Co-accused's Guarantee Termination, the accused named in the FIR were declared as the principal accused and fatal injury, the accused's case is distinguished and his bail is canceled. The order remains intact.

1985 S C M R 981

Present: Muhammad Yaqub Ali, C.J. and Muhammad Gul, J

SOHAIL‑‑Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE and others‑‑Respondents

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 154 of 1975, decided on 17th November, 1975.

(On appeal from the Judgment and Order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 7‑4‑1975 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1160‑B of 1975).

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑

‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑Bail‑‑Cancellation of‑‑Co‑accused allowed bail‑‑Accused named in F.I.R. as principal accused and fatal injury attributed to him‑‑Accused's case distinguished‑‑Order canceling his bail maintained.

Muhammad Shafi v. Muhammad Hanif 1970 S C M R 143 upheld.

Q.M. Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain,

Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.2.

Date of hearing: 17th November, 1975.

JUDGMENT

MUHAMMAD GUL, J.

‑‑This petition is from the order of the Lahore High Court dated 7‑4‑1975 whereby bail granted earlier to the petitioner herein, who was accused alongwith others in a case under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. was cancelled because he had since been committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.

The main ground urged by the learned counsel in support of the petition is that the petitioner's father and brother who were also co‑accused in the case have been allowed bail by this Court on 9‑11‑1973 in the appeal arising out of petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 322 of 1973. It appears that this Court allowed the bail to them because neither of the two was named as accused in the F.I.R. On the other hand the fatal injury is attributed to the petitioner herein and he is also named in the F.I.R. as the principal accused. This clearly distinguishes the petitioner's case from the other accused and, therefore, A the bail was rightly cancelled by the High Court following the dictum of this Court in Muhammad Shafi v. Muhammad Hanif 1970 S C M R 143.

There is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.

M. I. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
top advocate from Kalaswala lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.