1976 PLP 391 (SCMR)
FAZAL MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus ALI AHMAD AND 3 OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1976 PLP 391 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑ S. 497/498 ‑Bail‑Cross‑cases‑High Court enlarging accused on bail on grounds of there being prima facie probability of counter version having some truth, process being served on complainant party and some accused also having received injuries including a grievous injury on head of one accused‑Case, held, not in circumstances, fit to be interfered with but petitioner could approach High Court for cancellation of bail should any accused misuse privilege of bail. Bail, |
| Bench Members | Salahuddin Ahmed, Muhammad Afzal Cheema, |
| Parties | FAZAL MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus ALI AHMAD AND 3 OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 391 (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 1976 PLP 391 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑ S. 497/498 ‑Bail‑Cross‑cases‑High Court enlarging accused on bail on grounds of there being prima facie probability of counter version having some truth, process being served on complainant party and some accused also having received injuries including a grievous injury on head of one accused‑Case, held, not in circumstances, fit to be interfered with but petitioner could approach High Court for cancellation of bail should any accused misuse privilege of bail. Bail, bench comprising: Salahuddin Ahmed, Muhammad Afzal Cheema,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 391 (SCMR) (FAZAL MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus ALI AHMAD AND 3 OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Noor Ahmed Noori, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 20th January 1976.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the orders of the Lahore High Court, dated the 29th of September 1975, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3508/B of 1975). ‑‑ S. 497/498 ‑Bail‑Cross‑cases‑High Court enlarging accused on bail on grounds of there being prima facie probability of counter version having some truth, process being served on complainant party and some accused also having received injuries including a grievous injury on head of one accused‑Case, held, not in circumstances, fit to be interfered with but petitioner could approach High Court for cancellation of bail should any accused misuse privilege of bail. [Bail],
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑The petitioner vas been aggrieved by at; order of a learned Singe Judge of the Lahore High Court releasing the three accused‑respondents on bail in a case registered against them on the 4th of Jane 1974, under section 302/147/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. It appears that the occurrence took place at the well of respondent Ali Ahmad and the accused persons took up a plea of right of private defence and alleged that some of them, too, had been injured as a result of the incident They also lodged a complaint against the complainant party of the present case. Eventually a challan was submitted against persons including the said three respondents, and thereupon commitment proceedings started against them. Several witnesses have already been examined in the proceedings. The recent amendment in the low has cut short the proceedings and the accused now await trial in the Sessions Court. Of the 8 accused persons all except the three respondents had been released on bail earlier by the High Court. Subsequently respondents Murid Hussain and Niaz Hussain applied for bail before the High Court but were refused by Javed Iqbal, J, of the High Court. Still later all the three respondents applied for bail and the same learned Single Judge of the High Court granted them bail on the ground that there was "prima facie probability that the counter version has also some truth in it'', and that in the counter‑case process had been served on the complainant party. Furthermore that some of the accused had received injuries including a grievous injury on the head of one of them. On behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that the respondents should never have been granted bail as they were mentioned in the first information report and overt acts were attributed to them including the allegation that respondent Ali Ahmad had struck on the head of the deceased with a seta. In the facts and circumstances of the case we do not think this is a fit case to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, if the accused‑respondents or any of them misuse the privilege of bail the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the High Court for cancelling the bail. Petition dismissed.