1968 P Cr (PLP)
FAROOQ AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM SHABBIR AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1968 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J |
| Parties | FAROOQ AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM SHABBIR AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 P Cr (PLP) (FAROOQ AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM SHABBIR AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Jafar Malik, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim Sheikh, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 497 & 498‑Bail High Court granting bail‑Consideration that no overt act in committing offence was attributable to accused ‑ High Court not shown to have exercised discretion in violation of any principle of law‑Petition to Supreme Court for special leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Ss. 497 & 498‑Bail High Court granting bail‑Consideration that no overt act in committing offence was attributable to accused ‑ High Court not shown to have exercised discretion in violation of any principle of law‑Petition to Supreme Court for special leave to appeal dismissed. Muhammad Jafar Malik, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim Sheikh, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 5th December 1967. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of the High Court granting bail to Ghulam Shabbir and Allah Ditta, respondents, who along with 8 others have been challaned under section 302 read with section 149, P. P. C. for the murder of one Sawan. The consideration which prevailed with the learned Judge in the High Court in granting bail was that no overt act in causing the death of Sawan deceased was attributed to either of the respondents and that one of them was studying in M. A. class and the other was an employee of the District Board. It cannot be said that the learned Judge has acted in breach of the provisions of section 498, Cr. P. C. or exercised his discretion in granting bail to the respondents in violation of any principle of law to call for interference by this Court. The petition is dismissed.