1979 PLP 55 (SCMR)
ANSAR MAHN400D AND 2 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1979 PLP 55 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ANSAR MAHN400D AND 2 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 PLP 55 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1979 PLP 55 (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: 1979 PLP 55 (SCMR) (ANSAR MAHN400D AND 2 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 19th October 1978.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 26‑9‑1978 of the Lahore High Court passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2585‑B of 1978). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑
S. 497(5)‑Cancellation of bail‑No allegation of petitioner being involved on account of political or some similar motive‑Petitioners accused of serious criminal offences and yet too early to speculate on degree of their involvement in incident‑High Court, held, rightly cancelled petitioner's pre‑arrest bail. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 26‑9‑1978, passed by a Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby he cancelled the order dated 25‑6‑1978 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, granting bail before arrest to the petitioners. A case under sections 149, and 302/149, P. P. C. has been registered against the petitioners and some others. The petitioners and one of their co‑accused, Painda Khan moved the Add]. Sessions Judge, Gujrat, for bail before arrest. The Addl. Sessions Judge refused bail to Painda Khan apparently on the ground that the allegation against him was that he bad caused injuries to the deceased. He, however, admitted the petitioners to pre‑arrest bail on the ground that they did not cause any injury to the deceased and the complainant only attributed that simple injuries to them. On a petition under section 497(5), Cr. P.' C. being moved by the complainant for cancellation of bail, the learned Judge in the High Court observed that the petitioners were named in the F. I. R. and a specific role of causing injuries to the complainant was attributed to them. They were accused of the offence under sections 148 and 302/149; P. P. C. and the ground on which the Addl. Sessions Judge bad allowed bail was not available in a case of bail before arrest, but may be relevant after a person has been arrested. He, accordingly, cancelled the bail allowed to the petitioners by the Addl. Sessions Judge. Before us, Dr. Khalid Ranjha has attempted to agitate the same plea which found favour with the Addl. Sessions Judge. We; however, are entirely in agreement with the High Court that this is not at all a fit case for grant of bail before arrest. No allegation that the petitioners have bee involved in this case on account of political or some similar motive has bee made. They are accused of serious criminal offences and it is yet too early to speculate on the degree of their responsibility in the incident. The learned Judge in the High Court, therefore, rightly cancelled their pre‑arrest bail. The petitioners should, therefore, be taken into custody and they may, if so advised, apply for bail after their arrest to the Sessions Judge after some time. This petition fails and is dismissed hereby. Petition dismissed.