1969 PLP 134 (SCMR)
CHIRAGH SHAH AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1969 PLP 134 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | CHIRAGH SHAH AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure‑Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 134 (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 1969 PLP 134 (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: 1969 PLP 134 (SCMR) (CHIRAGH SHAH AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Anwar Raja, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Mahmood Akhtar Raja, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing : 23rd October 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, .dated the 29th July 1968, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3886 of 1968).
S. 498‑Anticipatory bail‑Only evidence of threat of arrest being affidavit of applicant alone‑No sufficient ground for holding that genuine apprehension existed of his being arrested‑High Court, held, rightly declined to entertain application. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Anwar Raja, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Mahmood Akhtar Raja, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioners. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing : 23rd October 1968. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑In connection with a case under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, registered at Harappa Police Station in the District of Sahiwal against Habib Shah and 6 others, it‑ is alleged that the petitioner Ahmad Shah, who is a real brother of the said Habib Shah and Chiragh Shah are also being sought to be involved: Upon this allegation the two petitioners before us filed an application for bail before arrest in the High Court but a learned Single Judge of the High Court refused to grant‑ bail on the ground that there was no imminent danger of arrest to the petitioners. The petitioners now se,‑k special leave to appeal to this Court. So far as the petitioner Chiragh Shah is concerned it is stated that he has since been arrested. Hence his petition for bail before arrest has now become infructuous and the same is dismissed: So far as the petitioner Ahmad Shah is concerned; the only evidence of any threat of arrest is the affidavit of the petitioner but this by itself cannot be a sufficient ground for holding that there is any genuine apprehension of his being arrested, particularly since there is admittedly no allegation against him in the First Information Report. We are of the view that the High Court has acted rightly in refusing to entertain his application for bail before arrest at this stage. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.