1983 PLP 15 (SCMR)
SANAULLAH AND 3 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus The STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 15 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SANAULLAH AND 3 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus The STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 15 (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 1983 PLP 15 (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: 1983 PLP 15 (SCMR) (SANAULLAH AND 3 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus The STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Abdul Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanveer Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Sh. Abdul Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanveer Ahmad, Advocate-on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 3-3-1982, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 450/B/82).
Ss. 497 & 498-Bail-Contention that only witness mentioned in F. I. R. having filed an affidavit stating to have not seen occurrence, petitioner entitled to be released on bail-Held: Even if such witness be assumed to have not seen occurrence, complainant being also a witness would support prosecution case and High Court in circum stances justified in dismissing bail application. Date of bearing : 25th April, 1982.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN. J.‑Through this petition Sanaullah, Mansha, Ata Ullah and Khan, petitioners seek Leave to Appeal against the dismissal of their bail application by the High Court vide order dated 3‑3‑1982. They are accused, inter alia, for offence under section 148/ 302/307/324/365/ 451/149, P. P. C. The F.I.R. was lodged by Muhammad Ilyas (P. W.) who also suffered as many as 10 injuries during the incident out of which 3 were incised wounds. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition was that the only witness mentioned in the F.I.R. namely, Nasrullah (P. W.) has filed an affidavit that he had not seen the occurrence. Even if it be assumed that he had not seen the occurrence it is admitted that Muhammad Ilyas, the complainant in the ease, who is also an eye‑witness, would support the prosecution case. In the view of this matter, the High Court was justified in dismissing they bail application. The petition is consequently dismissed. Petition dismissed.