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 for Special Leave to Appeal No. 15 of 1986, decided on 19th March, 1986.
(From the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 10‑11‑1985 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2764‑B of 1985).
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑In a case of murder accused (respondent, was granted bail before arrest while other accused were granted bail after arrest‑‑Petitioner choosing to challenge bail granted to accused (respondent) before arrest and not challenging bail granted to other accused after arrest although latter were falling in same category to which accused (respondent) belonged‑‑Prima facie case of petitioner not distinguishable from that of other: to whom bail had been allowed‑‑Held, no useful purpose was likely to be served if bail of accused (respondent) was cancelled on any technical ground because after arrest he could again be allowed bail on the ground that similarly placed other accused were already on bail‑‑Interference declined by Supreme Court.
Malik Saeed Hassan, Advocate with S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on -Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Mian Nusratullah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing: 19th March, 1986.
.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 10‑11‑1985 of the Lahore High Court; whereby in a case of murder, Zafar Ullah Khan respondent was allowed bail before arrest.
2. The case of murder was initially instituted against seven persons. The majority of them were not attributed any specific role in so far as the physical injuries to the victims are concerned. Accordingly, in this category the respondent was allowed bail before arrest and some others were allowed bail after arrest. The petitioner has chosen not to challenge the grant of bail after arrest to the other persons falling in the same category to which the respondent belongs. The distinction made according to the learned counsel, is based on the fact that he has been allowed bail before arrest.
3. After hearing the learned counsel we feel that prima facie, at this stage, the case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from that of others to whom bail has been allowed. No useful purpose would be served if the bail of Zafar Ullah Khan respondent is cancelled on any technical ground because after arrest he would again be allowed bail on the ground that similarly placed other accused are already on bail. We, therefore, in the circumstances of this case, do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. This petition accordingly, is dismissed.
M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer