SCMR 1978

1978 PLP 77 (SCMR)

KHAN BADSHAH-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 1977 in Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 110-8 of 1977, decided on 17th November 1977.
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1978 PLP 77 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members N/A
Parties KHAN BADSHAH-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 77 (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 77 (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 77 (SCMR) (KHAN BADSHAH-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Zafar Mahmood Senior Advocate assisted and instructed by Moor Ahmad Noon, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
  • Date of hearing ; 13th November 1977
  • Zafar Mahmood Senior Advocate assisted and instructed by Moor Ahmad Noon, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
  • S. Ibn‑Ali, Additional Advocate‑General N: W. F. P., Peshawar for the State.
  • On our enquiries, the learned Additional Advocate‑General very fairly conceded that the petitioner was an aged man. He also admitted that there was no hope of the case being tried within one year. In this connection, he further, admitted that the final challan had not been submitted. Additionally as the only role attributed to the petitioner is that of a Lalkara, the petitioner's case is supported by this Court's judgment in Abdul Aziz's case, and as rightly stressed by Mr. Zafar Mahmood, this judgment is a judgment of the full Court. Unfortunately, the attention o the High Court was not drawn to this authority. In the circumstances discussed, we, therefore, convert the petition into an appeal and allow it. Bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner Kohat.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 31st October 1977, in Cr. Misc. Na. 567 of 1977).

S. 498-hail-Accused petitioner an aged man-No hope of case being tried within one year and final challan not submitted-Role of lalkara alone attributed to petitioner-Bail alloyed.-(Bail-Age). Abdul Aziz v. Bashir Ahmad P L D 196:6 S C 658 ref. S. Ibn-Ali, Additional Advocate-General N: W. F. P., Peshawar for the State.

Judgment & Decree

DORAB PATEL. J‑‑Malik Daud Shah was shot dead on the night of the 20th of July 1977, and the petitioner and his son are being tried for the murder. As the petitioner's application for ball was dismissed by an Additional Session Judge, Kohat. he challenged this order in the Peshawar High Court. But as a learned Judge of the Peshawar. High wart dismissed the application for bail on 31‑10.1977, the petitioner had filed this petition for leave on which this Court ordered notice on 7‑10‑1977. The petitioner had sought bail, Inter alia, on the ground that no overt act except s Lalkara had been attributed to him that he was an aged man. The learned Judge was. however, not impressed by these pleas because the petitioner, according to the F. I. R. was armed with a fire‑arm at the time of the occurrence and he was impressed by the fact that there was no previous enmity between the parties. This latter observation had reference to the fact that the Police statements of the eye‑witnesses supported the prosecution case. In these circumstances, the learned Judge rejected the prayer for bail. Mr. Zafar Mahmood admitted that the petitioner was alleged to have been armed with a fire‑armed with a fire-arm at the time of the occurrence but he submitted that no weapon had been recovered from the petitioner nor had it been alleged that he had used the fire‑arm. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner was an aged man and he relied on a judgment of this Court in Abdul Aziz v. Bashir Ahmad (P L D 1966 S C 658). On our enquiries, the learned Additional Advocate‑General very fairly conceded that the petitioner was an aged man. He also admitted that there was no hope of the case being tried within one year. In this connection, he further, admitted that the final challan had not been submitted. Additionally as the only role attributed to the petitioner is that of a Lalkara, the petitioner's case is supported by this Court's judgment in Abdul Aziz's case, and as rightly stressed by Mr. Zafar Mahmood, this judgment is a judgment of the full Court. Unfortunately, the attention o the High Court was not drawn to this authority. In the circumstances discussed, we, therefore, convert the petition into an appeal and allow it. Bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner Kohat. Boil allowed