Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petitions Nos. 3‑P and 4‑P of 1986, decided on 2nd February, 1986.

(On appeal from the Judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dated 11‑1‑1986 in Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal 837 of 1985).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 307/34‑‑Bail‑‑Old age and defective vision‑‑High Court's order granting him bail challenged with contention that mere old age was no ground for grant of bail‑‑Held, High Court in exercise of its discretion has not violated any principles of law or committed any other illegality‑‑Impugned order not being open to interference, leave to appeal refused.‑‑[Age].

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/307/34‑‑Offence under S. 302/307/34, P.P.C‑ Petitioner having fired at complainant party without damage to anyone‑ Refused bail by High Court‑‑Plea that petitioner was attributed ineffective firing and his case being of further enquiry, was entitled to be released on bail, not accepted‑‑Held: High Court in exercise of its discretion has not violated any principles of law or committed any other illegality‑‑Impugned order not open to interference‑‑Petition dismissed.

Arbab Muhammad Hamayun Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Cr. P. 3‑P of 1986).

Abdul Aziz Kundi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner (in Cr. P. 4‑P of 1986).

Arbab Muhammad Hamayun, Advocate . Supreme Court for Respondent No.l (in Cr. P.4‑P of 1986).

Date of hearing: 2nd February, 1986.

‑These two petitions are proposed to be disposed of together by this consolidated order as they relate to two accused in the same case. Petitioner Rashid Khan (Criminal petition No. 3‑P of 1986) and respondent No.l Mir Nawaz (Criminal Petition No.4‑P of 1986), alongwith Muhammad Nawaz and Lal Nawaz are facing trial under section 302/307/34, P.P.C. for the murder of Akhtar Nawaz son of Nek Nawaz and for attempt on the life of Nek Nawaz and others. The application for the release of Rashid Khan was dismissed by the Magistrate First Class, Karak, on 16th September, 1985. Similarly Mir Nawaz also applied for bail but his request was also turned down. Both accused then approached the Additional Sessions Judge Karak, for their release but their applications were dismissed.

2. They, therefore, applied for the grant of bail in the Peshawar High Court. The learned Single Judge who heard the bail application of the two accused, after referring Mir Nawaz to the medical board and obtaining their medical opinion came to the conclusion that he was entitled to bail. According to the opinion of the medical board Mir Nawaz was of 70 years of age and had defective vision in his right eye and his left eye vision only extended to perception of light. So far Rashid Khan is concerned, the learned single Judge found that prima facie he was attributed role in the participation of the crime, in that, he had fired at the complainant party although without damage to any one. As a result of these conclusions, the learned single Judge by his order, dated 11th January, 1986 admitted to bail respondent No.l Mir Nawaz (Criminal Petition No.4‑P/1986) and dismissed the application for bail in respect of petitioner Rashid Khan (Criminal Petition No.3‑P/1986).

3. Petitioner Rashid Khan has brought this petition for leave to appeal from the order of the High Court for his release on bail and complainant Nek Nawaz has brought petition for leave to appeal to challenge the order of the High Court granting bail to respondent Mir Nawaz.

4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners and examined the order passed by the High Court ands subordinate Courts. The main ground urged on behalf of Rashid Khan by his learned counsel is that he has been attributed ineffective firing and, therefore, his is a case of further inquiry. As regards Mir Nawaz a has been urged on behalf of the complainant that mere old age is n ground for grant of bail.

5. After hearing the learned counsel at length, we find no force in the argument of either side. The High Court in the exercise of its discretion has not violated any principles of law or committed any other illegality. We find no justification to interfere with the order of the High Court and refuse leave in both petitions.

M.I. Petitions 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.