1978 PLP 364 (SCMR)
GULSHER — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1978 PLP 364 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GULSHER — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 364 (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 1978 PLP 364 (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: 1978 PLP 364 (SCMR) (GULSHER — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jari Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, advocate on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 8th June 1978.
- Jari Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, advocate on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeal against the judgment and order dated 18th April 1978 of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 110/B of 1978).
Ss. 497 & 498-Bail-Overt act attributed to petitioner in F. I. R. High Court, held, rightly refused to grant bail to petitioner and dis cretion in refusing bail exercised properly. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
WAHEEDUDDIN AHMED, J.‑The petitioner, alongwith his two brothers, are involved is F.I. R. No. 124 dated 26‑4‑i7 registered at P. S. Gojra under section 302/34, P. P. C. They filed Criminal Miscellaneous 110/B of 1978 for bail. The petitioner's co‑accused Dilmir and Khan were granted bail by the Lahore High Court by Order dated 18‑4‑
78. The petitioner's bail application was dismissed by the Order. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said Order. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was armed with a Kassi. He alongwith his other co‑accused attacked Abdul Majid deceased and Muhammad Hanif P. W. his brothers. Abdul Majid received three injuries caused by blunt weapon of which one on the head proved fatal. This is attributed to Gulsher. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the F. I. R. According to him Gulsher received 8 injuries caused by blunt weapon, which were simple in nature. He contended that the petitioner Gulsher bad acted in self‑defence and the occurrence took place at the tube‑well of the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that an overt act is attributed to Gulsher the petitioner in the F. I. R, and the High Court has rightly refused to grant him the bail. The discretion vested in the High Court has been exercised properly. We do not see any reason to, interfere with the Order of the High Court. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.