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. 214 of 1986, decided on 26th July, 1986.
(Against the Judgment and order, dated 17‑5‑1986 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, .in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1162‑B of 1966).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1960), S. 302/307/34‑‑Bail‑‑Petitioner accused of shouting fatal Lalkara, denied bail‑‑Plea that no other role was attributed to such accused, duly taken note of by two Courts below and prima facie view of entire available material having been formed by them and such view found by Supreme Court to be unexceptionable‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Raja M. Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
M.A. Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Complainant.
Date of hearing: 26th July, 1986.
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, dated 17‑5‑1986 refusing him bail after arrest in a case registered against him and three others under sections 302/34 and 307/34, P.P.C. at Police .Station Saddar, Faisalabad on 27‑8‑1983.
Earlier, the bail before arrest of the petitioner was cancelled by this Court observing that "This order will, however, not preclude him from moving petition for bail after arrest and is being dealt with on its own merits."
When the petitioner moved the application for bail after surrendering to the order his application was rejected by the learned Session Judge observing "in this case not only the role of shouting lalkara is attributed to the petitioner but in fact the actual motive is also attributed to him". The High Court after taking note of the facts upheld that order observing as follows:‑
"The whole case of the complainant party is that the petitioner traffics in narcotics and that the other three co‑accused are his servants and agents. The fatal Lalkara is attributed Lo the petitioner, which led to indiscriminate use of first arms by the other three co‑accused'. Without going on the record as having given any finding in the matter, 1 would only say for the limited purposes of this bail petition, that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail."
The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken up the same ground before us, viz., the proverbial Lalkara and no other role being attributed to him.
We have heard the learned counsel at length and find that his submission has been duly taken note of by both the Courts, and a prima facie view of the entire available material has been formed. which even to us at this stage, does not appear exceptionable or requiring correction. Hence leave to appeal is 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