1975 PLP 246 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD DIN AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1975 PLP 246 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD DIN AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 246 (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 1975 PLP 246 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 PLP 246 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD DIN AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Abdul Rahim, Advocate Supreme Court Instructed by Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing : 3rd February 1975.
- Rana Abdul Rahim, Advocate Supreme Court Instructed by Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the orders of the Lahore High Court, dated the 20th of December 1974 and 21st of January 1975 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 477/B of 1974 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 262/B of 1975, respectively). -- Ss. 497 & 498-Bail-Accused petitioners specifically mentioned in First Information Report and their complicity supported by statement of another witness recorded under S. 164, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898-Petitioners held rightly refused bail first by Sessions Court and later by Single Bench of High Court Observation of Single Bench that petitioners could again move for bail after a month if no substantial progress made in finalising investigation-Petitioner's bail application submitted thereafter to High Court rejected, High Court observing that its earlier order intended bail application to be moved before Sessions Court and not to High Court-Facts and circumstances of case, held, afforded no reason to interfere with High Court's order-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307/342/436/365/148/
149. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑Both these petitions arise out of the orders of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court refusing to grant bail to the petitioners and they are now being disposed of under one order. A case under section 307/342/436/365/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code was registered against the petitioners and some others on the 21st of October 1974. The two petitioners have been specifically mentioned in the first infor mation report and this is supported by the statement of another witness recorded under section 104 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In these circumstances they were rightly refused bail first, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and then by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, The learned Single Judge, however, by his order dated the 20th of December) 1974, observed that these petitioners could again move for bail after a month, If no substantial progress was evade in finalising the investigation in the case out of this order arises Petition No. 6‑R of 1974. After one month the petitioners again approached tie High Court for grant of bail, inter alia, on the ground that no substantial progress had been made in the investigation. The learned Single Judge observed on this application that the intention of his earlier order was that the application for bail could he repeated before 6e trial Court and not to the High Court. The second application was accordingly rejected by the learned Single Judea by his order dated the 21ct of January 1975. Petition No. 6‑R of 1975 arises out of the second order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated the 21st of January 1975. Petition No. 6‑R of 1975 is accordingly dismissed. Petition No. 6‑R of 1974 arising out of the order of the learned Single Judge dated the 20th of December 1974, has become infructuous and it is accordingly dismissed as such. Petitions dismissed.