1983 PLP 1191 (SCMR)
ABDUL JABBAR AND OTHERS Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1191 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL JABBAR AND OTHERS Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1191 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1191 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1191 (SCMR) (ABDUL JABBAR AND OTHERS Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abul Karim Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing : 6th February, 1983.
- Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abul Karim Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 27-11-1982 of the Lahore High Court in Cr. Misc. No. 2779/B/ 1982). --Art. 185(3)-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497- Bail-Accused approaching High Court for bail while their petition already pending in Supreme Court-Conduct of accused, held, highly improper. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑The two petitioners seek leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court dated 27‑11‑1982 refusing them bail in a case registered at Police ‑Station Alipur Chatha, District Gujranwala vide F. I. R. No. 114 on 16‑12‑1981 under sections 307, 326, 324/149, 148, P. P. C. The petitioners along-with four others were charged for‑attacking with firearm, hatchet and Sotas, the complainant Syed Altaf Hussain Shah and others. and injuring them. In the first round the petitioners along-with two others sought bail and they were denied bail by the High Court. They filed a petition for leave to appeal in this Court and on the application for interim bail two of their companions were admitted to bail but the same was refused to the petitioners. Without waiting for the decision of the petition‑ for leave to appeal filed by them earlier The petitioners filed a fresh petition in the High Court the same month seeking bail on the ground of inordinate delay. Their petition for leave to appeal against the earlier order of the High Court was dismissed on 9‑1‑83 while the High Court denied the petitioners bail by the impugned order. During the hearing of the petition we pointed out to the learned counsel the highly improper conduct of the petitioners in approaching the High Court in the matter of bail while their petition was already pending in this Court, There was no compelling or strong reason for their doing so The ground of delay was not at all in the circumstances attracted and the High Court rightly not made it the basis for grant of bail. We fin that in view of the earlier rejection of the petition on 9‑1‑83 by this Court there is hardly any case for the petitioner to seek bail. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. S. Q. Leave refused.