1969 P Cr (PLP)
S. M. ZAHEER‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1969 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | S. M. ZAHEER‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 P Cr (PLP) (S. M. ZAHEER‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. M. Zubair, Advocate ‑Supreme Court instructed by M. Sirjees Nagi, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 21st October 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 23rd September 1968, in Criminal Bail Application No. 313 of 1968). Bail‑--Reasonable grounds for believing person guilty of offence punishable with transportation for life‑Fact that two of has co accused absconded‑High Court, held, justified in refusing bail. Raja Said Akbar Khan, Advocate‑General West Pakistan (C. M. Latif Rawn, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Siddiq & Company, Attorneys for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Bail‑--Reasonable grounds for believing person guilty of offence punishable with transportation for life‑Fact that two of has co accused absconded‑High Court, held, justified in refusing bail. S. M. Zubair, Advocate ‑Supreme Court instructed by M. Sirjees Nagi, Attorney for Petitioner. Raja Said Akbar Khan, Advocate‑General West Pakistan (C. M. Latif Rawn, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Siddiq & Company, Attorneys for the State. Date of hearing : 21st October 1968. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑‑The petitioner is charged under sections 268, 365, 395 and 468, P. P. C. The High Court has declined to release him on bail as two of his co‑accused have already absconded and reasonable grounds appeared for believing that the petitioner has been guilty of an offence punishable with transportation for life. The view adopted by the High Court is plainly correct. We also see no ground to interfere with the order passed by the High Court in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under section 498, Cr.P. C. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. Leave refused.