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 Application No. 893 of 1982, decided on 2nd June, 1983.
‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 327 & 342/34‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑Accused allegedly attempting to intimidate complainant after grant of bail‑‑Names of accused not named in F.I.R.‑‑One of accused, a practising Advocate‑‑Incident narrated in F.I.R., requiring further investigation and further inquiry‑‑No interference in investigation of case by accused after their release on bail‑‑Application for cancellation, opposed by State‑‑No reason to interfere with bail order found‑‑Petition dismissed in circumstances.
Khawaja Mahfooz‑ur‑Rehman for Applicant.
Abdul Sattar Sheikh. Addl. A.‑G. for the State.
This application for cancellation of bail is filed by the complainant, Syed Waris Ali. The application is opposed by the State and Mr. Abdul Sattar Sheikh; learned Additional. Advocate‑General states that he supports the order of bail passed by this Court on 6‑11‑1982 and confirmed on 7‑11‑1982. The respondents 1 to 3 filed an application for bail before arrest in this Court after rejection of their bail by the lower Court and I granted interim bail on 6‑11‑1982 with notice for 7‑11‑1982. On the following day Mr. M.I. Memon, Additional Advocate‑General appeared for the State and stated his no objection to the confirmation of bail which was accordingly confirmed. In the present application it is urged that the respondents 1 to 3 are persons of bad reputation that they have definitely committed offence under section 327/342/34, P.P.C. and, therefore, they were not entitled to grant of bail. It is also alleged that after grant of bail the accused persons had attempted to intimidate the applicant and, therefore, the concession of bail granted to them is liable to be withdrawn. None of the above contentions raised by the applicant have any force. The F.I.R. was lodged against the respondent under section 327/342/34, P.P.C. The names of the applicants are not mentioned in the F.I.R. but it is stated that the complainant can recognize them after seeing them. One of the accused persons is stated to be an Advocate practising at Karachi.
The incident narrated in the F.I.R. is such which requires further investigation and further enquiry into the case. The applicant has failed to establish that the respondents after having been enlarged on bail attempted to interfere with the police investigation. The application for cancellation of bail is strongly opposed by the State and rightly so in the circumstances of the present case. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with my order passed earlier in the case granting bail to these respondents but the respondents are directed to co‑operate with the police in the investigation of the crime alleged against them. With these observations the application for cancellation of bail is rejected.
S.A./S‑19/K Bail cancellation refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer