1968 PLP 1320 (SCMR)
FAZAL DIN‑Petitioner Versus ALI MUHAMMAD alias LAKHOWALA‑Respondent
| Citation | 1968 PLP 1320 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FAZAL DIN‑Petitioner Versus ALI MUHAMMAD alias LAKHOWALA‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 PLP 1320 (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 1968 PLP 1320 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 PLP 1320 (SCMR) (FAZAL DIN‑Petitioner Versus ALI MUHAMMAD alias LAKHOWALA‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Attorney Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 21st June 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 14th May 1 y68, in Criminal Miscel laneous No. 1518 of 1968.)
S. 497 and Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/149‑Bail granted to one accused by Sessions Court on ground that no sharp weapon injury was found on deceased whereas accused alleged to have attacked deceased with spear‑Committing Magistrate, however, left at liberty to cancel bail in event of a charge being framed against accused- Order granting bail in circumstances, held, not liable to inter ference by Supreme Court‑Special Leave to Appeal against grant of bail refused by Supreme Court. ORDER ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑A case under section 302/148/149, P. P. C. was registered against eight persons including the present respon dent, Ali Muhammad alias Lakhowala for the murder of one Wali Muhammad. The Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, granted bail to the respondent as he found that there was no sharp‑pointed weapon injury on the person of the deceased though this accused was said to have attacked the deceased with a spear. The present petitioner moved the High Court for cancellation of bail on two grounds; (i) that the respondent mis‑used his liberty as he tried to suborn witnesses, and (ii) that even if the respondent caused no injury still he could not escape vicarious liability. A learned Single Judge of the High Court found that so far as the first point is concerned there were affidavits and counter- affidavits by the parties and he was not satisfied that the allegation about suborning evidence had been established. With regard to the second point, the learned Judge said that it is true that the Additional Sessions Judge over‑looked the fact of application of section 149, P. P. C. in the case of the present respondent but that by self was not sufficient to call for interference by him in the exercise of his discretion. It was also pointed out that the Additional Sessions Judge while granting bail left it to the discretion of the committing Magistrate to cancel bail in the event of his framing a charge of a non‑bailable offence against the respondent. It is contended that the courts below did not keep in view the decision of this Court in the case of Muhammad Aslam and others v. The State (P L D 1967 S C 539). In the present case it has already been noticed that the Additional Sessions Judge has left it to the discretion of the committing Magistrate to cancel the bail of the respondent if he ultimately committed him for trial to the Sessions. In view of that we do not feel that the orders in question call for interference by this Court at this stage. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑A case under section 302/148/149, P. P. C. was registered against eight persons including the present respon dent, Ali Muhammad alias Lakhowala for the murder of one Wali Muhammad. The Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, granted bail to the respondent as he found that there was no sharp‑pointed weapon injury on the person of the deceased though this accused was said to have attacked the deceased with a spear. The present petitioner moved the High Court for cancellation of bail on two grounds; (i) that the respondent mis‑used his liberty as he tried to suborn witnesses, and (ii) that even if the respondent caused no injury still he could not escape vicarious liability. A learned Single Judge of the High Court found that so far as the first point is concerned there were affidavits and counter- affidavits by the parties and he was not satisfied that the allegation about suborning evidence had been established. With regard to the second point, the learned Judge said that it is true that the Additional Sessions Judge over‑looked the fact of application of section 149, P. P. C. in the case of the present respondent but that by self was not sufficient to call for interference by him in the exercise of his discretion. It was also pointed out that the Additional Sessions Judge while granting bail left it to the discretion of the committing Magistrate to cancel bail in the event of his framing a charge of a non‑bailable offence against the respondent. It is contended that the courts below did not keep in view the decision of this Court in the case of Muhammad Aslam and others v. The State (P L D 1967 S C 539). In the present case it has already been noticed that the Additional Sessions Judge has left it to the discretion of the committing Magistrate to cancel the bail of the respondent if he ultimately committed him for trial to the Sessions. In view of that we do not feel that the orders in question call for interference by this Court at this stage. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.