1971 PLP 663 (SCMR)
WARYAM AND 3 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1971 PLP 663 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | WARYAM AND 3 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971 PLP 663 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971 PLP 663 (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: 1971 PLP 663 (SCMR) (WARYAM AND 3 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Asif Jan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbul Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 19th October 1971.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court, Lahore, dated the 5th June 1971, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1273/13 of 1971). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497‑Bail‑Accused committed to Sessions Court to stand trial‑Not ordinarily entitled to bail under S. 497 as it cannot be said that no reasonable grounds appear to believe that such person was not guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The petitioners have been com mitted to stand trial under sections 148 and 302 read with section 149, P. P. C. They were refused bail by the High Court in the first instance, but the Sessions Judge who was probably not aware of that order allowed them bail inter alia on the ground that the co‑accused of the petitioners was arrested after the com mitment proceedings had been completed and it will take some time to complete the inquiry against him. The High Court has on a petition filed by the private com plainant set aside the order granting bail from which the petitioner seeks leave to appeal. The order passed by the High Court is in accord with the rule laid down by this Court, that if a person is committed to stand trial he will not ordinarily be entitled to bail under section 497, Cr. P. C., as it cannot be said that no reasonable grounds appear to believe that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life. No extra ordinary feature to exclude the petitioner's case from this rule was brought to our notice. Mr. Asif Jan urged that as the trial of the petitioners has been postponed to await the completion of the commitment proceedings against co‑accused Fazil which will take quite some time, it was a fit case for grant of bail. We do not see why the inquiry against Fazil should not be expedited, but if it is likely to be delayed his case should be separated from the case of the petitioner and the Sessions Judge should proceed with the trial. With these observations the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.