1994 P Cr (PLP)
GHULAM SARWAR — Petitioner Versus KHALIL and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM SARWAR — Petitioner Versus KHALIL and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (GHULAM SARWAR — Petitioner Versus KHALIL and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Dr. Khalid Ranjha for Petitioner.
- Asghar Khan Rokhri for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/148/149/337-A(i)/337-F(i)- --Cancellation of bail
Contention was that the accused had succeeded in obtaining bail from High Court by making misrepresentation to the effect that they had also got a case registered against complainant under S.302, P.P.C.
Section 302, P.P.C. had been mentioned in the order in place of S.337, P.P.C. under which the case was registered and except said clerical error rest of the facts were the same
Accused were not alleged to have misused the concession of bail
Judgment & Decree
Dr. Khalid Ranjha for Petitioner. Ashfaque Ahmed Ghuman for the State. Asghar Khan Rokhri for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11thApril, 1993. The facts leading to the filing of this application seeking cancellation of bail are that a case under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. read with sections 337-A(i) and 337-F(1), Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, vide F.I.R., dated 31-5-1992 was registered with Police Station Piplan, District Mianwali, against the respondents. The respondents applied for bail and were allowed the same on 9-1-1993, by this Court. In the present application learned counsel for the petitioner seeks cancellation of said bail. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents were not entitled to the concession of bail because they had not come to the Court with clean hands. It was argued that the respondents had by making misrepresentation succeeded in obtaining bail from the Court. It was pointed out that the main reason, which found favour with this Court for grant of bail was that, the respondents had also got a case registered under section 302, P.P.C. against the complainant side therefore, it was a case of counter version.
2. I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the order, dated 9-1-1993, whereby respondents were allowed bail. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct that section 302, P.P.C. was mentioned in the said order. In fact the respondent side had got a case registered under section 337, P.P.C. Said case was got registered with regard to the same occurrence in which a person lost his life and a case under section 302, P.P.C. was registered against the respondents. Except for clerical error, rest of the facts are the same. It was a case of counter-version. There is no allegation that the respondents have misused the concession of bail. I don't find any substance in the petition which is dismissed. N.H.Q./G-206/L Petition dismissed.