1975 PLP 354 (SCMR)
FATEH MOHAMMAD AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE AND ANOIHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1975 PLP 354 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Salahuddin Ahmed, Anwarul Haq and Muhammad |
| Parties | FATEH MOHAMMAD AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE AND ANOIHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 354 (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 1975 PLP 354 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Salahuddin Ahmed, Anwarul Haq and Muhammad.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 PLP 354 (SCMR) (FATEH MOHAMMAD AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE AND ANOIHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Abdur Rehman, Advocate instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate -on-Record for Petitioners.
- Sh. Abdur Rehman, Advocate instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from an order of the Lahore High Court made on the 5th of February 1975, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4226/B of 1974). Ss. 497 & 498-Bail-High Court not shown to have acted in illegal or improper manner in exercise of its discretion vested under S. 497, no justification, hold, existed for Supreme Court's interference-Trial having not yet commenced despite lapse of 8 months, petitioners, held, would be entitled to renew their application for bail before Court concern9d if trial still unduly delayed. Nemo for the State. Data of hearing: 14th March 1975.
Judgment & Decree
Ss. 497 & 498‑Bail‑High Court not shown to have acted in illegal or improper manner in exercise of its discretion vested under S. 497, no justification, hold, existed for Supreme Court's interference‑Trial having not yet commenced despite lapse of 8 months, petitioners, held, would be entitled to renew their application for bail before Court concern9d if trial still unduly delayed. Sh. Abdur Rehman, Advocate instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for the State. Data of hearing: 14th March 1975. ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑The two petitioners, Fateh Muhammad and Nawas, are aggrieved by an order made by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 5‑2‑1975, whereby bail allowed to them by the lower Courts was cancelled, mainly on the ground that according to the F. I. R. the petitioners were armed with guns and actually used them causing injuries to one Aslam. One pellet was said to be still embedded in his neck. It is submitted that although the case was registered as long ago as the 6th of July 1974, but no progress has been made in the trial in spite of the lapse of a period of eight months. As it is not shown that the High Court has acted in an illegal or improper manner in exercising the discretion vesting in it under section 497, Cr. P. C., we see no justification to interfere. We would accordingly dismiss this petition, with the observation that if the trial is unduly delayed, the petitioners would be entitled to renew their application for bail before the Court concerned. Petition dismissed.