1987 PLP 432 (SCMR)
BABU‑‑Petitioner Versus ARSHAD JAVID and another Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 432 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | BABU‑‑Petitioner Versus ARSHAD JAVID and another Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 432 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 432 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 432 (SCMR) (BABU‑‑Petitioner Versus ARSHAD JAVID and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Q.M. Salim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents. .
- Date of hearing: 21st October, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, dated 8‑7‑1986 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1473/B of 1986). (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑High Court having rightly exercised its discretion in grant of bail, Supreme Court declined to interfere‑‑Leave to appeal refused. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497‑‑Bail‑ Discretion of High Court, exercise of‑‑High Court having rightly exercised its discretion in allowing bail, Supreme Court declined to interfere.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑ The petitioner /complainant has applied for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent Arshad Javid by the learned High Court. 2.In admitting the respondent to bail, learned High Court has noticed as under; "Ilyas and Arif P.Ws. claimed to have seen a person lying injured near the cluster of trees and 3 armed persons going away soon after hearing the fire report but they kept mum for more than 4 months and disclosed these facts to the Investigating Officer for the first time on 14‑8‑1985." 3. It was contended by the learned counsel that no case for further inquiry was made out and in the circumstances the discretion was not correctly exercised by the learned High Court under subsection 2 of section 497, Cr.P.C. The contention must fail because nowhere it is mentioned that bail was granted as the case was of further inquiry. Certain rulings cited by the learned counsel, which related to the application for section 497(2), Cr.P.C. are, therefore, irrelevant. The discretion in the case having been rightly exercised, no interference is called for. The petition is accordingly dismissed. M.I. /4422/S Petition dismissed