1968S3183 (PLP)
N/A
| Citation | 1968S3183 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | N/A |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968S3183 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968S3183 (PLP)?
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: 1968S3183 (PLP) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL-E‑AKBAR, J.‑‑The respondents Karam Dad Khan and Sahib Dad Khan have been convicted under section 302/34, P. P. C. by the Sessions Judge, Mianwali, for the murder of one, Rafiullah. The High Court while admitting their appeal granted bail to Karam Dad Khan on the ground that the main part attributed to him was "that he gave a 'Lalkara ". The learned counsel has contended that a person who stands convicted for murder under section 302, P. P. C. cannot be released on bail. It is true that ordinarily such a convict should not be granted bail. Section 426 of the Criminal Procedure Code, however, does not impose any such limitation on the power of the High Court and the High Court for good and sufficient reasons can exercise their power of granting bail under the above section. As the High Court has given cogent reasons for granting bail, we see no good ground for interference in this case. As pointed out by this Court in Ghulam Haider and others v. Karim Bakhsh and another (P L D 1963 S C 46). 'This Court does not interfere in a case of bail, unless the circumstances are altogether of an exceptional character, so that refusal might entail risk of a grave illegality or clear abuse of process, or some gross act of injustice, e.g. victimization." The learned counsel has, however, failed to point out any such exceptional circumstances for our interference in this case. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.