1988 PLP 335 (SCMR)
MOHRI KHAN — Appellant Versus GHULAM RASOOL and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 335 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Saad Saood Jan and Wan Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MOHRI KHAN — Appellant Versus GHULAM RASOOL and another — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 335 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 335 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Saad Saood Jan and Wan Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 335 (SCMR) (MOHRI KHAN — Appellant Versus GHULAM RASOOL and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
- Abdul Shakoor Piracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate- on-Record for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Mohri Khan complainant sought leave to appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 28-1-1987 and 7-3-1987 granting bail to Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Bashir respondents. We issued notice to the State as well as the respondents for today as we proposed to hear and decide the matter finally. We, therefore, grant leave and proceed to dispose of the matters as appeals.
2. Counsel for the parties are present. The learned counsel for the petitioner (complainant) submits that Mst. Ghulam Fatima made a confession implicating herself as well as the two respondents before respectables including the grandmother of Muhammad Bashir accused respondent and that even the father of Muhammad Bashir had made a statement that he (i.e. Muhammad Bashir) had confessed the matter to him. As such the learned Court had erred in granting bail to the two respondents on the ground that there was no material against them. The learned State counsel supported the petition while the learned counsel for the respondents supported the High Court judgment.
3. We do not wish to record a detailed order which may prejudice the respondents at the trial, but think if sufficient to observe that after hearing the counsel for the parties and going through relevant statements placed on the record by the parties, we feel that there is sufficient material to show that a prima facie case is made out against the two respondents and that there are reasonable grounds for believing that they are guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. We are, therefore, of the view that this is a fit case for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents. We, therefore, allow the appeals and cancel the bail granted to the two respondents. S.Q./M-229/S Bail cancelled.