1987 PLP 1424 (SCMR)
ABDUL SATTAR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1424 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL SATTAR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1424 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1424 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1424 (SCMR) (ABDUL SATTAR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Major Wahiduddin Virk, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Abul Aasim Jafari, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 26th May, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 4th May, 1987 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 499/B of 1987). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 497(5)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑Discretion of High Court‑‑Interference with‑‑Accused under S. 307/325/34, P.P.C. allowed bail‑‑High Court noticing that discretion was not properly exercised by Magistrate, cancelled bail‑ Order impugned‑‑Supreme Court having carefully considered matter, declined to interfere with proper exercise of discretion by High Court and refused leave to appeal. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL J.‑‑In this petition leave is being sought against order dated 4th May 1987 passed by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court Lahore whereby bail allowed to the petitioners was cancelled. Briefly the background is that a case had been registered against the petitioners under section 307/325/34, PPC on 5th November 1986 by Mushtaq Ahmad. The allegation against them was that both armed with Sotas had belabored Liaqat and his son Sharafat. According to the medical evidence Liaqat had received 9 injuries at their hands out of which two were grievous because his right leg was fractured at two places. Sharafat on the other hand had received two simple injuries. Liaqat was carrying a gun which he did not use and even that was stolen by the petitioners during the occurrence. The Magistrate at Okara had allowed bail to the petitioners for the reason that the injuries were on non‑vital parts of the body and because Liaqat did not use his gun, therefore the prosecution story was doubtful. The learned Single Judge after going through the record arrived at the conclusion that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners were involved in the commission of offence because at the time of the attack they were accompanied by two more persons who were armed with guns and that it was due to this reason that Liaqat could not use his own gun and that the Magistrate had not exercised his discretion properly in the case. We have heard learned counsel who has attempted to argue that the offence of the. petitioners would fall neither under section 307 nor 326 PPC but would at the most fall under section 325 PPC and therefore they were entitled to be released on bail. We have', carefully considered this argument of the learned counsel but in our view it is not a fit case for interference in the proper exercise of the discretion of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court Lahore. In that view of the matter this petition is dismissed. M . I . / A‑56/ S Petition dismissed.