1978 PLP 43 (SCMR)
JAMIL AHMED-Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1978 PLP 43 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | -- S. 498-Bail-Fatal blow allegedly only a fist blow-Petition seeking cancellation of bail time-barred by more than one hundred days---Explanation for delay: minority of petitioner and his lack of knowledge of implications of order granting bail-Explanation held, not satisfactory particularly for reason of non-disclosure of when and hew petitioner realised, legal implications of impugned order and petition liable to dismissal as time-barred.-Limitation. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | JAMIL AHMED-Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 43 (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 43 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- S. 498-Bail-Fatal blow allegedly only a fist blow-Petition seeking cancellation of bail time-barred by more than one hundred days---Explanation for delay: minority of petitioner and his lack of knowledge of implications of order granting bail-Explanation held, not satisfactory particularly for reason of non-disclosure of when and hew petitioner realised, legal implications of impugned order and petition liable to dismissal as time-barred.-Limitation. 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 43 (SCMR) (JAMIL AHMED-Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Riaz Ahmed Pirzada, Advocate instructed by Noor Ahmed Noori, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 5th November 1977.
- Syed Riaz Ahmed Pirzada, Advocate instructed by Noor Ahmed Noori, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court, dated 16th October 1976, in Bail Application No. 992 of 1976). -- S. 498-Bail-Fatal blow allegedly only a fist blow-Petition seeking cancellation of bail time-barred by more than one hundred days
Explanation for delay: minority of petitioner and his lack of knowledge of implications of order granting bail-Explanation held, not satisfactory particularly for reason of non-disclosure of when and hew petitioner realised, legal implications of impugned order and petition liable to dismissal as time-barred.-[Limitation].
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ S. 498‑Bail‑Fatal blow allegedly only a fist blow‑Petition seeking cancellation of bail time‑barred by more than one hundred days‑‑‑Explanation for delay: minority of petitioner and his lack of knowledge of implications of order granting bail‑Explanation held, not satisfactory particularly for reason of non‑disclosure of when and hew petitioner realised, legal implications of impugned order and petition liable to dismissal as time‑barred.‑[Limitation]. Syed Riaz Ahmed Pirzada, Advocate instructed by Noor Ahmed Noori, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 5th November 1977. DORAB PATEL, J.‑This petition for leave has been filed against an order of a learned Single Judge of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court dated 16‑10‑1976 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the second respondent's application for bail pending his trial under section 302/307/34, P. P. C. The impugned order is challenged on the ground that the charge against the second respondent is for murder, therefore, we have examined the impugned order and the learned Single Judge allowed bail inter alia on the ground that the deceased had only been given fist blows by the petitioner and/or others and that the fatal blow also was only a fiat blow. As the petitioner has not supplied a copy of the post‑mortem, we enquired about the precise nature of the fatal injury and we were informed that the fist blow had ruptured the spleen of the deceased. Be this as it may, the petition is time‑barred by more than one hundred days and the only explanation for the delay is that the petitioner was a miner, therefore, he wall not able to understand the implications of the order granting bail. We are not impressed by this explanation the more so as tae petition does not disclose when and the petitioner had relied tile legal implication of the impugned order, the petition is dismissed as time‑barred. Petition dismissed.