1978 PLP 287 (SCMR)
JAN MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1978 PLP 287 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Anwarul Haq, C. J., Muhammad Haleem and Ghulam Safdar Shah, JJ |
| Parties | JAN MUHAMMAD-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 1978 PLP 287 (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 1978 PLP 287 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Anwarul Haq, C. J., Muhammad Haleem and Ghulam Safdar Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP 287 (SCMR) (JAN MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Tariq Jamal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Qasim Imam, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent No. 1.
- N: M. Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Safdar Hussain, Advocate-on Record for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing: 29th March 1978.
- M. Tariq Jamal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Qasim Imam, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
- N: M. Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Safdar Hussain, Advocate‑on Record for Respondent No. 2.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court in Cr. Misc. No. 78 of 1977).
Ss. 497 & 498-Bail-Petitioner and his father named as assailants in F. I. R. regarding murder--Petitioner absconding, case proceed ing against his father, and father eventually acquitted-Petitioner appear ing before Sessions Court and released on bail mainly on ground of his co-accused being acquitted but bail subsequently cancelled by High Court-Contention that Sessions Judge exercised his discretion properly in allowing bail on ground of alleged eye-witnesses of occurrence having been already disbelieved in trial against petitioner's father relating to same incident and High Court should not have interfered in matter-Held : Findings of Sessions Court in trial against petitioner's father not relevant in petitioner's own trial-Quality of evidence in petitioner's trial to be judged independently of previous findings-Fatal shot haring been attributed to petitioner, it could not at present stage be said that no grounds existed for believing peti tioner being guilty of an offence punishable with death or transpor tation for life.
Judgment & Decree
ANWARUL HAQ, C, J.‑The petitioner Jan Muhammad and his father Ali Akbar were named as the assailants in an F. I. R. registered on the 17th of September, 1974, regarding the murder of one Mumtaz Ali. It is alleged that the petitioner absconded and could not be arrested until the 23rd of March, 1976. In the meantime his father Ali Akbar was tried and acquitted by the sessions Court. The petitioner was allowed bail by the Additional Sessions Judge; Peshawar, by his order dated the 4th of February, 1977, mainly on the ground that his co‑accused had been acquitted. This order was challenged before the High Court by the complainant, and the bail allowed to the petitioner was cancelled by a learned Judge by his order dated the 5th of July, 1977. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitions that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had exercised his discretion properly in allowing bail to the petitioner on the ground that the alleged eye‑witnesses of the occurrence had already been disbelieved in the trial against the petitioner's father relating to the same incident, and, therefore, the High Court should not have interfered in the matter. He next contends that in any case the evidence against the petitioner being of doubtful quality, it is a fit case where he should be allowed to remain on bail during the pendency of the trial. We regret we see no merit in these submissions. The findings of the Sessions Court in the trial against the petitioner's father are not relevant in the petitioner's own trial, and the quality of the evidence would have to be judged independently of the previous findings. As the matters stand, the fatal shot has been attributed to the petitioner by the prosecution, with the result that it cannot be said at this stage that there are no grounds for believing that the petitioner is guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life. As a result the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.