1994 PLP 691 (SCMR)
LIAOAT ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 691 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | LIAOAT ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 691 (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 1994 PLP 691 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 691 (SCMR) (LIAOAT ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arif Iqbal Hussain Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th November, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 23‑6‑1993 passed in Cr.M. No. 1823‑B/1993). ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Bail granted by Sessions Judge was cancelled by High. Court‑‑ Observations of High Court were based on sound legal principle making distinction of the judgment of Supreme Court reported in "1980 SCMR 369" relied upon by the accused‑‑‑Reasoning and exercise of discretion by the High Court in setting aside the Sessions Court's order granting bail to the accused did not suffer from any infirmity‑‑‑Supreme Court declined interference. Gul Arab v. Adam Khan 1980 SCMR 369 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑
‑By the impugned order the learned Judge in Chambers set aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge by which bail had been allowed to the petitioner.
2. According to the allegations in the FIR, Liaqat Ali petitioner armed with pistol, Riasat Ali and Rafaqat Ali armed with Sarya are alleged to have abused Nadim Sadiq, the son of the complainant stating that they had come to avenge the last night's incident in which they had been insulted by Nadim Sadiq. There was exchange of abuses between them and Riasat Ali attacked with Sarya which injured Nadim Sadiq. Hearing the noise Nasir Khan came and tried to intervene upon which Rafaqat and Riasat injured him. When Nadim Sadiq tried to catch hold of Liaqat Ali he fired at him which injured Nadim Sadiq. The learned Additional Sessions Judge granted bail application holding that the occurrence had taken place all of a sudden without any background of previous enmity and that offence, if any, may fall under section 308, P.P.C. requiring proper consideration at the relevant time. Reliance was also placed on Gul Arab v. Adam Khan (1980 SCMR 369). However, the learned Judge in Chambers took a contrary view distinguishing the aforestated judgment of the Supreme Court and observed as follows:‑‑ "In the case in hand, at the present stage, no element of suddenness can be inferred. The complainant has mentioned in the F.I.R. the incident; which had taken place on the previous night between the victim and the respondent. The respondent had come to avenge the insult of that incident along with his two brothers. They all had launched attack. His two brothers had inflicted injuries to Nadim Sadiq in the first instance. They had also caused injuries to a witness who had tried to rescue Nadim Sadiq. It was thereafter that Nadim Sadiq was fired at by the respondent and caused injuries on the vital parts of the body. Such circumstances, for the present, do not leave scope to observe/hold that it might have been a sudden occurrence. The facts of the case relied upon by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and the observation made therein are, therefore, different from the case in hand."
3. The observations of the learned Judge of the High Court quoted above are based on sound legal principle and a proper distinction of the judgment relied upon by the petitioner (Gul Arab's case) has been made. We do not find any infirmity in the reasoning and exercise of discretion by the learned Judge. The petition is dismissed. N.H.Q/L‑65/S Leave refused.