1992 PLP 1468 (SCMR)
ZAHID and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1468 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J |
| Parties | ZAHID and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1468 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1468 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1468 (SCMR) (ZAHID and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shaukat Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ijaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 27th February, 1991
- Q.M. Salim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.
- Maqbool Elahi Malik, A.-G. Punjab and Kh. Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 21-1-1991 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.4709/B of 1990).
S. 497
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
High Court while commenting upon the approach of the Sessions Judge took note of the injuries on the accused and considered that as a proof positive of the fact that there was no doubt about the participation by two of them who were injured-- Contention was that rule applied by the High Court should at least help one of the accused persons who had no injury
Held, it was a fit case for grant of bail to said accused and his bail should not have been cancelled as consideration for cancellation of bail under S.497(5), Cr.P.C. were different from refusal to grant bail claimed under S.497(1)(2), Cr.P.C.
Supreme Court converted the petition for leave to appeal into appeal and while allowing bail to the accused who was found not to have been injured and vice versa upheld the order of the High Court for cancellation of bail granted to the other accused. Q.M. Salim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Maqbool Elahi Malik, A.-G. Punjab and Kh. Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.
In this bail matter a learned Judge in the High Court cancelled the petitioners' bail in a case of murder. It had earlier been granted by the Sessions Court. . One factor which had influenced the learned lower Court when granting the bail was that two petitioners had not been attributed any overt act, (as the fatal injury was attributed to another accused) therefore, as it thought, the question of application of section 34, P.P.C. required further examination. The High Court while commenting upon the approach of the Sessions Court took note of the injuries on the accused and considered this as a proof positive of the fact that there was no doubt about the participation by two of them who were injured. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that rule applied by the High Court should at least help one of the petitioners who had no injury. In addition he has vehemently argued that while there was only one blow inflicted on the complainant's side from the petitioners' side, they received numerous injuries at the hands of the complainant's side. He also argued' that the benefit of self-defence could have been granted to the petitioners at least for purpose of bail. After hearing all the learned counsel we consider it a fit case for grant of bail to Zahid petitioner by acting on the well-known principles for cancellation of bail attracted under subsection (5) of section 497, Cr.P.C., his bail should not have been cancelled; though we agree with the High Court that the learned Sessions Judge also was not right in granting bail to the accused in this case, in a hurried manner. However, at the same time we observe that the learned Judge in the High Court was not conscious that the considerations for cancellation of bail under section 497, Cr.P.C. are different from refusal to grant bail claimed under subsection (1) or (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, we convert this petition into appeal and while allowing bail to Zahid petitioner who was found not to have been injured; and vice versa uphold the order of the High Court for cancellation of bail granted to Saeed Mustafa petitioner. He shall surrender to the lawful custody. M.BA./Z-135/S Order accordingly.