1990 PLP 346 (SCMR)
ABDUL AZIZ‑‑Petitioner Versus SALEH MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 346 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh, Zaffar Hussain Mirza |
| Parties | ABDUL AZIZ‑‑Petitioner Versus SALEH MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 346 (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 1990 PLP 346 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, Zaffar Hussain Mirza.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 346 (SCMR) (ABDUL AZIZ‑‑Petitioner Versus SALEH MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tahir Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. A. M. Quadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Baluchistan High Court, Quetta dated 26‑4‑1989 in Criminal Revision No.36 of 1989). ‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302/34‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑High Court refused bail of accused for the reasons that there was categoric statement of prosecution witness directly implicating the accused for the commission of offence alleged against him, effect of delay in recording statement of prosecution witness could not be determined at bail stage and evaluation of his statement by comparing with statement of other witnesses would also not be justified at that juncture‑‑‑Held, in view of weight of evidence of at least one eye‑witness, High Court rightly refused to grant bail to accused for the reasons with which no exception could be taken‑‑‑Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302/34‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑High Court refused bail of accused for the reasons that there was categoric statement of prosecution witness directly implicating the accused for the commission of offence alleged against him, effect of delay in recording statement of prosecution witness could not be determined at bail stage and evaluation of his statement by comparing with statement of other witnesses would also not be justified at that juncture‑‑‑Held, in view of weight of evidence of at least one eye‑witness, High Court rightly refused to grant bail to accused for the reasons with which no exception could be taken‑‑‑Petition dismissed. Tahir Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. A. M. Quadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th June, 1989. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the order of a learned Judge of Baluchistan High Court rejecting petitioner's request for bail pending trial of a case against him and co‑accused under section 302/34, P.P.C. Earlier petitioner's request in this behalf was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge 111, Quetta for the reason that one of the prosecution witnesses, namely Abdul Baqi had attributed the murder of Wali, deceased in the case, to petitioner. Learned Single Judge in the High Court rejected petitioner's request for the reasons which may be stated in his own words as under: "I have gone through available record and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for parties. For the present there is categoric statement of P.W. Abdul Baqi directly implicating the petitioner for the commission of offence alleged against him. However effect of delay in recording his statement cannot be determined at this stage. Similarly evaluation of his statement by comparing with statements of other witnesses will also not be justified at this juncture. Therefore in my opinion presently it is, not a fit case for grant of bail, accordingly petition is rejected." We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the points raised by him in support of the petition and gone through the record before us. In view of the weight of evidence of at least one eye‑witness, learned Judge in the High Court rightly refused to grant petitioner's request for release on bail for the reasons with which no exception can be taken. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. MA.K./A‑571/S Petition dismissed.