1981 PLP 507 (SCMR)
GHULAM MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1981 PLP 507 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Waheeduddin Ahmad and Muhammad Akram, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 507 (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 1981 PLP 507 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Waheeduddin Ahmad and Muhammad Akram, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 507 (SCMR) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- R. A. Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Abdullah Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.
- Nemo for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing: 29th June, 1977.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order slated 14-3-1977 of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4932/B/1976).
S. 497(5)-Bail, cancellation of-High Court canceling bail on ground of accused having abused such concession and no affidavit having been filed in rebuttal of allegations-Fresh application for recall of previous order canceling bail dismissed on ground of petitioner having filed no counter-affidavit controverting allegations made against him either in reply to earlier application or in support of his subsequent application -Order of High Court upheld by Supreme Court. Lal Khan v. Ali Khan and others P L D 1976 Kar. 1165 distinguished.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-On the 15-7-1976, the Sessions Judge, Kasur, allowed bail to the petitioner herein in a case registered against him under section 307/326, P. P. C. at the instance of respondent No.
2. But on the 2tth of October, 1976, on an application made by the respondent under section 497(5), Cr. P. C. the learned Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court cancelled the bail on the main ground that the petitioner has misused the concession of bail and was threatening the complainant and the other witnesses after his release on bail. The learned Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court while observing that in support of his contention the respondent has produced a report lodged to this effect with the police, cancelled his bail in the absence of any affidavit filed by the accused controverting the allegations. The petitioner then applied to the High Court for grant of bail afresh by recall of the earlier order dated 28th of October, 1976, passed by it. But on the 14th of March, 1977, the learned Chief Justice dismissed the application with the remarks that the accused has filed no counter-affidavit controverting the allegations made against him neither in reply to the earlier application nor in support of his application. In these circumstances the petitioner has filed this petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 14th of March, 1977, passed by the High Court. After hearing the learned counsel we are constrained to observe that neither in his reply to the application made by the respondent for the cancellation of the bail of the petitioner, nor in support of the subsequent application filed by the petitioner for bail in the High Court nor even before us in support of this petition for special leave to appeal, the accused has at any stage filed his affidavit controverting the allegations against him that he had misused the concession of bail allowed to him by the Sessions Judge and threatened the complainant and the eye-witnesses after his release on bail. In the circumstances the learned Chief Justice relied on the report made by the respondent in that connection. The reported case is Lal Khan v. Ali Khan and others (P L D 1976 Kar. 1165), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable inasmuch as the petitioner-accused in the instant case had failed to file any counter-affidavit controverting the allegations made by the respondent in his application for the cancellation of the bail of the petitioner which were admittedly supported by an affidavit filed by him. The High Court rightly placed its reliance on the material before it and this is not a fit case for interference by us in these proceedings. This petition for special leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.