P L D 1977 Supreme Court 642 (PLP)
SULTAN KHAN-Petitioner Versus AMIR KHAN AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1977 Supreme Court 642 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SULTAN KHAN-Petitioner Versus AMIR KHAN AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1977 Supreme Court 642 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1977 Supreme Court 642 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1977 Supreme Court 642 (PLP) (SULTAN KHAN-Petitioner Versus AMIR KHAN AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khawaja Muhammad Farooq, Advocate instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Mujibur Rehman. Advocate instructed by Maqboal Ahmad Cadet, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Nemo for Respondent No. 2.
Headnotes / Summary
Art 183-Bail-Supreme Court primarily a constitutional Court Hence held, not expected to go into matters concerning grant of bail by High Court-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497.[Bail].
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C.J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of 17-5-1977 of the High Court at Lahore, granting bail to Amir Khan, respondent. The respondent alonghwith co-accused Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Banaris are charged under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code for the murder of Amir Khan, brother of the present petitioner. The occurrence took place on 28-10-1976 in village Miens, Mehra, Police Station Chauntra, District Rawalpindi. The allegations are that the respondent armed with a gun, co-accused Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Banaris armed with pistols, waylaid the deceased in the vicinity of the village. Muhammad Akbar raised lalkara and fired his pistol which bit the deceased in the abdomen and he fell, whereupon Muhammad Banaris fired twice both shots hitting the deceased upon the head. The part attributed to the respondent was that he continued to raise lalkaras and he fired a shot which appears not to have hit the deceased. Learned counsel who appeared for the State in the High Court admitted that all she injuries sustained by the deceased were caused by pistol shots. The learned Judge took the view that since the respondent does not appear to have caused any fatal injury to the deceased, his role being confined merely to the raising of lalkara was pleased to allow bail to the respondent. We are constrained to observe that on the facts alleged in the p. I. R. and the evidence to which the eye-witnesses are going to depose, it was not a fit case for bail. The reasons which have appealed to the learn:d Single Judge indicate that if any accused has merely instigated the commission of murder and fired at the victim ineffectively, he is likely to be acquitted of the offence under section
302. Such a statement of law would be clearly against the provisions of the Code. However, since the Supreme Court is primarily a Constitutional Court and not expected to go into matters concerning grant of bail by the High/ Court, we do not feel called upon to interfere with the impugned order. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. S. A. H. Petition dismissed.