1970 P Cr (PLP)
HAYAT-Petitioner Versus SADA AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1970 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ahmad and Wahiduddin Ahmad, JJ |
| Parties | HAYAT-Petitioner Versus SADA AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court bench comprising: Sajjad Ahmad and Wahiduddin Ahmad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 P Cr (PLP) (HAYAT-Petitioner Versus SADA AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Riasat Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 8th April 1970.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 16th January 1970, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 270 of 1970). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497-Bail-Accused aged 60 to 65 years allegedly having raised mere Lalkara enlarged on bail by lower Courts-Question whether offence ascribed to accused amounted to offence of abetment still requiring determination at trial-High Court, in circumstance, held, rightly refused cancellation of bail-Petition for Leave to Appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West -Pakistan, whereby he refused to cancel the bail of the respondent No. 1 which was granted to him by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, in a pending murder case. The reasons given by the Sessions Judge and accepted by the learned Single Judge are that the respondent is an old man of 60 to 65 years of age and the only part ascribed to him was that he raised a lalkara before his co-accused attacked the deceased. We are not persuaded to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Courts below in the matter of the respondent's bail. The question would be determined at the trial as to whether the action of the respondent as attributed to him, constitutes an offence of abetment, that is to say, whether he did raise a lalkara and if so, to what effect. It cannot be said that the Courts below have acted arbitrarily in granting bail to the respondent in the exercise of their discretion. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.