1973 PLP 498 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM QADIR AND 2 OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1973 PLP 498 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Hamoodur Rahman, C. J. and Muhammad Gul, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YAQOOB‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM QADIR AND 2 OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1973 PLP 498 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1973 PLP 498 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Hamoodur Rahman, C. J. and Muhammad Gul, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1973 PLP 498 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YAQOOB‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM QADIR AND 2 OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Amjad Khan, Advocate instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Nazir Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Nemo for Respondent No. 3.
- Date of hearing: 29th June 1973.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from an order of the Lahore High Court, made on the 7th of February 1973, in Cr. Misc. No. 254/B of 1973). Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302 and Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.498‑Murder case‑Bail‑Commitment proceedings in progress‑Normally superior Courts should not interfere by granting bail particularly where action by superior Court likely to cause prejudice to parties before Committing Magistrate‑However, where High Court had granted bail, Supreme Court did not interfere with order holding grant of bail to be discretionary matter and not calling for interference unless discretion exercised in violation of legal principles.
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court granting bail to the first two respondents herein. The complainant now seeks to challenge the said order on the ground that since the respondents were charged under section 302/34, P. P. C. and commitment proceedings were in progress the learned Judge in the High Court ought not to have interfered. It is true that normally, after commitment proceedings have started, the High Court or a superior Court should not interfere, particularly, where any expression of opinion by a superior Court is likely to cause prejudice to the parties before the committing Magistrate. But since the grant of bail is a discretionary matter, it is not for this Court to interfere with every exercise of discretion by the High Court unless it has been exercised in clear and flagrant violation of legal principles. In the present case, we are unable to say that the High Court's order suffers from any such clear violation. It appears that the F. I. R. in the case does not attribute any specific part to either of the respondents and the spent bullet recovered from the site of the occurrence has not been matched with any weapon recovered from the respondents. If the spent bullet is matched with any one of the weapons so recovered or the committing Magistrate comes to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case for committing the respondents for trial to the Court of Session, then it will be open to the complainant to move the Sessions Court for the cancellation of the bail of the said respondents. At the present stage, we do not propose to interfere and accordingly dismiss this petition, although we ourselves would not, after being informed that commitment proceedings have already commenced, grant bail in a case of this nature. Leave refused.