1976 PLP 134 (SCMR)
WAHID BAKSH AND ANOTHER‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1976 PLP 134 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | WAHID BAKSH AND ANOTHER‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 134 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 134 (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: 1976 PLP 134 (SCMR) (WAHID BAKSH AND ANOTHER‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- D. M. Arbey, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan instructed Eyed Inayat Hussain Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing : 12th November 1975.
Headnotes / Summary
On appeal from the judgment arid order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 21-8-1975 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1 of 1975 in Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 1975). --Art. 185(3) read with Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1981), S. 498‑Bail, ad interim‑High. Court in appeal pending before it refusing interim bail‑Not possible, held, to differ with High Court without pre‑empting subject‑matter of appeal and such course net :risible during pendency of appeal before High Court‑Petition for leave to appeal to appeal being manifestly misconceived dismissed. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C.J.-The petitioners have preferred an appeal in the High Court against their convictions and sentences to various terms of imprisonment under sections 148, 459, 366 and 323 read with section 149, P. P. C. Prayer for interim bail was refused by a learned Judge against which ‑‑, sick leave to appeal. The petition has no merit whatever, for, unless we pre‑empt the subject matter of the appeal ,it will not be possible, to differ with the High Court in the matter of granting interim bail. As such a coarse is not feasible, the petition for leave to appal is manifestly misconceived and is dismissed. The petitioners however, apply to tare High Court early hearing of the appeal. Petition dismissed.