Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Petition No. 127 of 1986, decided on 15th April, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 16‑3‑1986 passed by the Lahore High Court, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 586/R of 1986).
‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497‑‑Bail‑ Petitioners accused of indiscriminate firing and demolishing Dera of complainant party‑‑Bail denied‑‑Plea that allegation being general and in absence of recovery of fire‑arms and specific role assigned to each of them, it was a case of further enquiry, repelled‑‑Petitioners having been named in F.I.R. with definite role of indiscriminate firing, injuring a number of persons, and three of them demolishing Dera, prima facie showed their participation in attack with lethal weapons which was sufficient to deny them concession of bail‑‑No interference called for‑ Leave to appeal refused.
Shahzad Jahangir, Bar‑at‑Law, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 15th April, 1986.
‑In this petition the allegation against the seven petitioners is that they were armed with fire‑arms and had fired indiscriminately injuring ten persons apart from two others, namely Bashir and Shafi, who had died. There is also the further allegation that petitioners 5 to 7 had demolished the Dera of Ghulam Haider so as to render the possession of the complainant party doubtful.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that this was a general allegation, and in the absence of any recovery of fire‑arms and specific role assigned to each of them, it was a case of further enquiry. The fact that their names transpired in the F.I.R. with the definite role that they had fired indiscriminately injuring a number of persons and that three of them had demolished the Dera of Ghulam Haider prima facie shows that they had participated in the attack with Lethal weapons which is sufficient to deny to them the concession of bail. Accordingly, no interference with the order of the High Court is called for.
The petition is thus without any merit, and is dismissed.
M . I . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer