1977 PLP 2 (SCMR)
KHUSHI MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner/Appellant Versus SHADA AND OTHERS‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1977 PLP 2 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Yaqub Ali, C. J., Salahuddin Ahmed, Muhammad Akram and Dorab Patel, JJ |
| Parties | KHUSHI MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner/Appellant Versus SHADA AND OTHERS‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 2 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP 2 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Yaqub Ali, C. J., Salahuddin Ahmed, Muhammad Akram and Dorab Patel, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 2 (SCMR) (KHUSHI MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner/Appellant Versus SHADA AND OTHERS‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khawaja Sultan Ahmad, Advocate and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Malik Maqbool Elahi, Advocate and Noor Ahmad Noori, Advocate‑on- Record for Respondents Nos. 1‑8.
- Muhammad Hanif Bhatti. Advocate and Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent No. 9.
- Date of hearing ; 10th February 1976.
- On 2nd December 1975, Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on -Record for the appellant moved an application for permission to withdraw the appeal as the parties appeared to have reached a compromise and consequent upon it the appellant had failed to take necessary steps for completion of record. The application for withdrawal was rejected on 6th February 1976 and the appeal was set down for hearing on 10‑2‑1976. The Assistant Advocate‑General who put. appearance for the State was directed to prosecute the appeal in place of Khushi Muhammad, at the hearing of the appeal.
- Mr. Maqbool Elahi, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 8 conceded that the appeal be allowed and the order passed by the High Court granting bail to his clients be set aside. He brought to our notice that since leave to appeal was granted, the eye‑witnesses who had supported the prosecution case had resiled from their earlier statements and he intends to apply for bail to the Sessions Judge on the basis of this later development. We are not concerned with the reasons which have motivated the learned counsel for res pondents 1 to 8 to concede the appeal. The Court had already formed a prim facie view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court was erroneous and called for interference. That is why the operation of the order granting bail to the respondents was suspended when leave to appeal was granted.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 8‑4‑1974, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4493/B of 1973). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ ‑‑ S. 498‑Bail, cancellation of‑Respondents' counsel conceding appeal to be allowed and agreeing to cancellation of bail allowed to his clients, reason given being resiling of eye‑witnesses from their earlier statements and his intention to apply for bail to Sessions Court on basis of such development‑Supreme Court having already formed prima facie view of impugned order being erroneous and calling for interference, appeal allowed and impugned order granting bail set aside.
Judgment & Decree
Khawaja Sultan Ahmad, Advocate and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant. Malik Maqbool Elahi, Advocate and Noor Ahmad Noori, Advocate‑on- Record for Respondents Nos. 1‑
8. Muhammad Hanif Bhatti. Advocate and Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent No.
9. Date of hearing ; 10th February 1976. JUDGEMENT MUHAMMAD YAQUD ALI, C. J.‑Leave to appeal was obtained by Khushi Muhammad, private complainant, against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Lahore, dated 8th April 1974, allowing bait to respondents 1 to 8 who are charged with offences under sections 302, 307 read with sections 149 and 148, P. P. C. While granting leave to appeal the operation of the order passed by the High Court was suspended. On 2nd December 1975, Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on -Record for the appellant moved an application for permission to withdraw the appeal as the parties appeared to have reached a compromise and consequent upon it the appellant had failed to take necessary steps for completion of record. The application for withdrawal was rejected on 6th February 1976 and the appeal was set down for hearing on 10‑2‑1976. The Assistant Advocate‑General who put. appearance for the State was directed to prosecute the appeal in place of Khushi Muhammad, at the hearing of the appeal. Mr. Maqbool Elahi, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 8 conceded that the appeal be allowed and the order passed by the High Court granting bail to his clients be set aside. He brought to our notice that since leave to appeal was granted, the eye‑witnesses who had supported the prosecution case had resiled from their earlier statements and he intends to apply for bail to the Sessions Judge on the basis of this later development. We are not concerned with the reasons which have motivated the learned counsel for res pondents 1 to 8 to concede the appeal. The Court had already formed a prim facie view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court was erroneous and called for interference. That is why the operation of the order granting bail to the respondents was suspended when leave to appeal was granted. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court. Appeal allowed.