1982 PLP 928 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1982 PLP 928 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 928 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 928 (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: 1982 PLP 928 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rana Abdul Majid, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan, instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 8th March, 1981.
- Rana Abdul Majid, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan, instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the Judgment and order dated 8-2-1981 of the Lahore High Court passed in Cr. M. No. 2/81). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
S. 426 (1-A)-Bail-Grant of bail during pendency of appeal- Held, within discretion of High Court--Supreme Court could not interfere in mater if such discretion exercised in a judicious manner. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.‑This judgment will dispose of criminal petitions for special leave to appeal bearing Nos. 112 and 113 of 1981. The petitioners in these two cases were committed by the learned Special Judge, alongwith two others, for forgoing certificates of the Board of Secondary Education regarding the matriculation examination. and each of them sen tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, besides being directed to pay fine in the some of Rs. 2,
000. Their appeals are now pending in the High Court, but they have been refused bail during the pendency of those appeals. Leave to appeal is sought on the ground that bail has been allowed to the two co‑accused, and bail has also been allowed to another per son similarly placed, who was convicted in a separate trial by the learned Special Judge. The learned counsel contends that the petitioners should have been treated on the same footing as the other co -accused, and the accused in another case, as he was facing similar allegations. The grant of bail during the pendency of an appeal is clearly a matter within the discretion of the High Court and this Court will interfere only if it is shown that the discretion has not been exercised in a judicious manner. The case of the accused person who was tried and convicted in x separate trial is not before us, but as regards the co accused of the petitioners we find that the learned Judge in the High Court has distinguished their case on the ground that the two petitioners had confessed their guilt before a Magistrate of the First Class, while the co‑accused had not done so, and accordingly, the evidence against the needed closer examination. The reason given by the learned Judge are directly relevant to the question of bail after conviction, and we see n reason to interfere with the order made by him. As a result both the petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. Petitions dismissed.