SCMR 1978

1978 PLP 314 (SCMR)

ANWAR KHAN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
---Ss. 497 & 498-Bail--Delay in prosecution proceedings-Committal proceedings having been abolished resulting in trial of murder cases by Sessions Judge, delay likely to occur due to pendency of large number of cases-Accused's release on bail on such ground, held, bound Fn have bad repercussions on public.-Delay.
Decided Date
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 47 of 1977, decided on 21st June 1977
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1978 PLP 314 (SCMR)
Forum / Court ---Ss. 497 & 498-Bail--Delay in prosecution proceedings-Committal proceedings having been abolished resulting in trial of murder cases by Sessions Judge, delay likely to occur due to pendency of large number of cases-Accused's release on bail on such ground, held, bound Fn have bad repercussions on public.-Delay.
Bench Members N/A
Parties ANWAR KHAN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 314 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLP 314 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the ---Ss. 497 & 498-Bail--Delay in prosecution proceedings-Committal proceedings having been abolished resulting in trial of murder cases by Sessions Judge, delay likely to occur due to pendency of large number of cases-Accused's release on bail on such ground, held, bound Fn have bad repercussions on public.-Delay. bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP 314 (SCMR) (ANWAR KHAN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Shahid hussain Kadri, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan assisted by Mahmood A. Qureshl, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
  • Shahid hussain Kadri, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan assisted by Mahmood A. Qureshl, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 16th December 1976 in Cr. Misc. No. 4552/B of 1976).

Ss. 497 & 498-Bail-Contention that deceased's party being aggressors, plea of self-defence be considered and accused be released on bail-Not possible, held, to raise any prima facie case in favour of accused petitioner without any evidence on record. 1973 Law Notes Lah. 536 ref.

Ss. 497 & 498-Bail--Delay in prosecution proceedings-Committal proceedings having been abolished resulting in trial of murder cases by Sessions Judge, delay likely to occur due to pendency of large number of cases-Accused's release on bail on such ground, held, bound Fn have bad repercussions on public.-[Delay]. Date of bearing : 21st June 1977.

Judgment & Decree

WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑This petition for Special Leave to Appeal is directed against Order of the High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4552/B of 1976 dated 26‑1‑1977. By this Order the bail application of the petitioner was dismissed. The occurrence took place on 29‑9‑

74. Abdul Aziz the first informer alleged that the petitioner alongwith four other persons, armed with deadly weapons, attacked the complainant, as well as some others which resulted is the death of Altaf Hussain and simple injuries were caused to Hasan Muhammad, Muhammad Bakhsh P. Ws. and Abdul Aziz complainant. The allegation against the petitioner is that he gave a hatchet blow, on the head vital part of the body, of the deceased which resulted in his death. The petitioner's case is that he sustained 12 injuries, and the other co‑accused Iftikhar and Ghulam Nabi also sustained some injuries. According to him, he had a right of self‑defence, and he should have been released on bail like other accused persons. The learned Chief Justice of the High Court in his Order under consideration has observed that it appears to be a case of sudden fight between the parties, and each person was responsible for his individual act. It is clearly alleged in the F. I. R. that Anwar Khan petitioner gave fatal blow to Altaf Hussain deceased by a hatchet. The injury was found by the doctor to be dangerous to life. It was on account of this that the deceased died. On these facts it appears to us that the learned Chief Justice was perfectly justified in rejecting the bail application. Mr. Shahid Hussain Qadri, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the plea of self‑defence should be considered at this stage. According to him, the aggressor party was of the deceased, and, therefore, the petitioner should be released on bail. The learned counsel referred to a decision of y ' the Lahore High Court given by the learned Chief Justice in 1973 Law Notes Lah. 536 and contended that in this case the plea of self‑defence was taken into consideration. In our opinion this contention is not well founded. Without any evidence on the record it is not possible to raise any prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. This contention, therefore, fails. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a delay of about 3 years and, therefore, the petitioner should be released on this ground. In our opinion, mere delay is no ground to grant bail. Under the present law, the committal proceedings have been abolished and murder cases are to be tried by the Sessions Judge. There would be,, thus large number of cases pending in the Court and delay in these cases is likely to occur. In these, circumstances, if accused persons are released on bail on this ground, it will have bad repurcussions on the public. In spite of this, we would, direct the trial Court to expedite the disposal of the case. Subject to the above remarks, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.