1980 PLP 190 (SCMR)
Haji ALLAH DITTA-Petitioner Versus UMAR DIN ETC.-Respondents
| Citation | 1980 PLP 190 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | G. Safdar Shah and Karam Elahee Chauhan, JJ |
| Parties | Haji ALLAH DITTA-Petitioner Versus UMAR DIN ETC.-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 190 (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 1980 PLP 190 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: G. Safdar Shah and Karam Elahee Chauhan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 190 (SCMR) (Haji ALLAH DITTA-Petitioner Versus UMAR DIN ETC.-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Naazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 24th April, 1979.
- --- Ss. 497 & 498‑Bail‑Challan submitted to Court showing respon dents accused having been shown in column 2‑Respective reports of. several Investigating Police Officers stating out of 15 accused having been falsely involved‑Respondents according to F. I. R. empty-handed but alleged to have dragged deceased and given them blows with brickbats‑Post‑mortem report, however, found to contain no signs of dragging or injuries by brickbats‑One of respondents allegedly armed with a. Khanjar pleading alibi and four Advocates swearing affidavits in his favour‑High Court in circumstances, held, sufficiently justified to conclude case via‑a‑via respondents being such as needed further inquiry‑High Court's order not suffering from violation of any principle of law applicable in matter of grant of bail, nor affecting trial, petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
- M. Naazar Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that in the challan submitted to Court the respondents have been shown in column (2) thereof. He also disclosed that investigation by various officers was conducted in this case and the Inspector and D. S. P. Crimes Branch in their respective reports had stated that 11 out of 15 accused were falsely involved. Accord to the F. 1. R. Umar Din and Mansha respondents were empty‑handed. 1t is stated that they dragged the deceased and also gave them below with brickbats. The post‑mortem reports, however, contained no signs of dragging or injuries by brickbatting. Bashir respondent was alleged to be armed with a khanjur and some part is attributed to him. However, he pleaded alibi and four Advocates of Sialkot have sworn affidavits in his favour. If the facts which have been mentioned above, are kept in' view then the finding of the learned Single judge that the case via‑a‑via the respondents is such which needs further enquiry, cannot be taken exception to as there are sufficient reasons and circumstances to Justify the same. The order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from violation of any principle of law applicable in criminal cases of this type in the matter of grant of bail, not affecting the trial.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeal against the judgment and order dated 6-12-1978 of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4359/B of 1978).
Ss. 497 & 498-Bail-Challan submitted to Court showing respon dents accused having been shown in column 2-Respective reports of. several Investigating Police Officers stating out of 15 accused having been falsely involved-Respondents according to F. I. R. empty-handed but alleged to have dragged deceased and given them blows with brickbats-Post-mortem report, however, found to contain no signs of dragging or injuries by brickbats-One of respondents allegedly armed with a. Khanjar pleading alibi and four Advocates swearing affidavits in his favour-High Court in circumstances, held, sufficiently justified to conclude case via-a-via respondents being such as needed further inquiry-High Court's order not suffering from violation of any principle of law applicable in matter of grant of bail, nor affecting trial, petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑Umar Din, Bashir and Mansha (respon dents herein) are involved alongwith 12 others in a case reported in am F. I. R. registered at P. S. Daska under section 302/148/149, P. P. C. for the double‑murder of Maula Dad and Fazal Dad. The respondents filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 4359/B of 1978 for being released on bail which was accepted by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court who by means of his order dated 6‑12‑78 released them on bail as the case, according to the learned Judge, was such which needed further enquiry.
2. The complainant Haji Allah Ditta has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the case and has prayed for the cancellation of the bail of the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the names of the respondents were contained in the F. I. R. and specific parts had also been attributed to them. In these circumstances, he submitted, the respondents should not have been released on bail. We have gone through the F. I. R., the post‑mortem reports of the deceased and have heard the learned counsel at length. It may be mentioned that the learned Single Judge of the High Court had sent for the Investigating Officer namely the Inspector, Crimes Branch who had appeared along with the record and submitted that accord ing to the result of the investigation, the respondents were innocent. We have taken note of this aspect of the case as well.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that in the challan submitted to Court the respondents have been shown in column (2) thereof. He also disclosed that investigation by various officers was conducted in this case and the Inspector and D. S. P. Crimes Branch in their respective reports had stated that 11 out of 15 accused were falsely involved. Accord to the F.
1. R. Umar Din and Mansha respondents were empty‑handed. 1t is stated that they dragged the deceased and also gave them below with brickbats. The post‑mortem reports, however, contained no signs of dragging or injuries by brickbatting. Bashir respondent was alleged to be armed with a khanjur and some part is attributed to him. However, he pleaded alibi and four Advocates of Sialkot have sworn affidavits in his favour. If the facts which have been mentioned above, are kept in' view then the finding of the learned Single judge that the case via‑a‑via the respondents is such which needs further enquiry, cannot be taken exception to as there are sufficient reasons and circumstances to Justify the same. The order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from violation of any principle of law applicable in criminal cases of this type in the matter of grant of bail, not affecting the trial.
5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.