1976 PLP 360 (SCMR)
SHAHID ARSHAD‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD NAQI BUTT AND 2 OTHERS ‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1976 PLP 360 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ---S. 497/498‑Bail‑Supreme Court on being informed by Counsel for State that inquiry proceedings were likely to conclude soon refusing to interfere with High Court's order refusing bail to respondent‑High Court, nevertheless, subsequently granting bail to respondents‑Supreme Court, though not happy about order thus passed, nevertheless, in view of there being nothing to show misuse of their privilege by accused not feeling advised to interfere with High Court's order at such stage‑Petitioner advised to approach High Court for cancellation of bail should any one of respondents misuse privilege of bail at any time.‑Bail. |
| Bench Members | Salahuddin Ahmed and Muhammad Afzal Cheeme, JJ |
| Parties | SHAHID ARSHAD‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD NAQI BUTT AND 2 OTHERS ‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 360 (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 1976 PLP 360 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---S. 497/498‑Bail‑Supreme Court on being informed by Counsel for State that inquiry proceedings were likely to conclude soon refusing to interfere with High Court's order refusing bail to respondent‑High Court, nevertheless, subsequently granting bail to respondents‑Supreme Court, though not happy about order thus passed, nevertheless, in view of there being nothing to show misuse of their privilege by accused not feeling advised to interfere with High Court's order at such stage‑Petitioner advised to approach High Court for cancellation of bail should any one of respondents misuse privilege of bail at any time.‑Bail. bench comprising: Salahuddin Ahmed and Muhammad Afzal Cheeme, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 360 (SCMR) (SHAHID ARSHAD‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD NAQI BUTT AND 2 OTHERS ‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Bari Salami. Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Date of hearing : 14th January 1976.
- Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Assistt. Advocate‑General Punjab for the State.
- It is pertinent to mention here that earlier when the said two respondents had applied for bail before arrest they were both refused bail. Thereafter, the matter came up before this Court and while the Court refused to interfere with the order refusing bail to respondent Muhammad Iqbal Butt it gave notice to the Advocate‑General in respect of respondent Muhammad Naqi Butt. Subsequently, having regard to the statement made by the learned Assistant Advocate‑General that the inquiry proceeding were likely to conclude soon, this Court refused to interfere with the High Court's order refusing bail to respondent Muhammad Naqi Butt.
- The learned Assistant Advocate‑General appearing on behalf of respondent State has stated that the date for the trial of the case by the Sessions Court will be fixed sometime neat month.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court; Lahore, dated the 13th October 1975, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3507/B of 19751.
S. 497/498‑Bail‑Supreme Court on being informed by Counsel for State that inquiry proceedings were likely to conclude soon refusing to interfere with High Court's order refusing bail to respondent‑High Court, nevertheless, subsequently granting bail to respondents‑Supreme Court, though not happy about order thus passed, nevertheless, in view of there being nothing to show misuse of their privilege by accused not feeling advised to interfere with High Court's order at such stage‑Petitioner advised to approach High Court for cancellation of bail should any one of respondents misuse privilege of bail at any time.‑[Bail]. Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Assistt. Advocate‑General Punjab for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑The petitioner has been aggrieved by an order dated the 13th of October 1975, passed by a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court releasing the two accused respondents Muhammad Naqi Butt and Muhammad Iqbal Butt on bail. It appears that the said two respondents were earlier in July 1975 committed to the Court of Session for trial on a charge under section X302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Both of them were mentioned in the first information report and it was alleged against respon dent Muhammad Iqbal Butt that he had fired the fatal shot. As against respondent Muhammad Naqi Butt the allegation was that he was standing at the gate of the house of occurrence in order to guard his companions including respondent Muhammad Iqbal Butt and later escaped in a car in their company. Both the respondents bad set up a plea of alibi but the Courts below the High Court felt that this was a question to be considered and determined by the trial Court, and we think that this was a correct attitude on the part of the said Courts. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier when the said two respondents had applied for bail before arrest they were both refused bail. Thereafter, the matter came up before this Court and while the Court refused to interfere with the order refusing bail to respondent Muhammad Iqbal Butt it gave notice to the Advocate‑General in respect of respondent Muhammad Naqi Butt. Subsequently, having regard to the statement made by the learned Assistant Advocate‑General that the inquiry proceeding were likely to conclude soon, this Court refused to interfere with the High Court's order refusing bail to respondent Muhammad Naqi Butt. Nevertheless, a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court grant them bail on the 13th of October 1975, and there is nothing to show the since then any one of them has misused the privilege granted to them. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General appearing on behalf of respondent State has stated that the date for the trial of the case by the Sessions Court will be fixed sometime neat month. In these circumstances although we are not happy about the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, we do not think it advisable to interfere with his order at this stage. If at any time any on of the said two respondents misuses the privilege of bail it will be open to the petitioner to approach the High Court for cancellation of bail. With this observation the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.