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. 129 of 1986, decided on 30th July, 1986.
(Against the judgment and order of the High Court, Lahore, dated 3‑3‑1986 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 588/13 of 1986).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.497(5) t 498‑ Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.397 & 411‑‑Bail‑‑Cancellation of‑ Pre‑arrest bail allowed by trial Court‑‑High Court refused to interfere and dismissed application for cancellation of bail‑‑No question of law requiring attention of Supreme Court being involved, petition dismissed.
Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing: 30th July, 1986.
The petitioners seeks leave to appeal against the order passed by the Lahore High Court on 3‑3‑1986 dismissing an application of the petitioner for cancellation of pre‑arrest bail of respondent No. 1.
The parties are closely related. They had a civil litigation pending in respect of a house in Satellite Town, Sargodha. An F.I.R. was lodged on the 17th of April, 1985 at 8.15 p.m. complaining of trespass, confinement and ouster from a portion of this disputed property of the family of the petitioner. A report was lodged under sections 148, 149, 440/354, 452/342, P.P.C. On 1‑5‑1985 was added in a supplementary statement offences under section 379/All, P.P.C. It appears that earlier the respondent No. 1 had been granted bail before arrest on 1‑6‑1985 and an effort of the petitioner to get it cancelled had failed in the High Court on 22‑9‑1985. Subsequently, when offence under section 441, P.P.C. was added another application was made seeking bail before arrest in respect of it as well. This was granted on 30‑1‑1986 by the Sessions Judge and the High Court refused to interfere with it dismissing in limine the petition filed by the petitioner on 3‑3‑1986.
Mr. Talib H . Rizvi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that in view of the serious offences committed by the respondent and the subsequent addition of offence under section. 379/411, P . P. C . he was not entitled to pre‑arrest bail.
We have gone through the record and find that the respondent was admitted to bail before arrest as early as 1‑6‑1985. Those proceedings or that order is not in issue. It was on subsequent statement of the complainant that other offences were added and the benefit of bail before arrest was extended to these offences also. We do not find that there is any question of law involved which may require our attention and leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
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