1981 PLP 1216 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YOUNUS-Petitioner Versus ISMAIL AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1981 PLP 1216 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUNUS-Petitioner Versus ISMAIL AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminals Petition Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 1216 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminals Petition Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 1216 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 1216 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YOUNUS-Petitioner Versus ISMAIL AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aftab Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate on Record for Petitioner.
- N. 1. Memon, Additional Advocate-General (Sind) for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th August 1981.
- After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate-General Sind (who has supported the order of the learned Judge of the High Court), we feel that the grounds given by the learned Single Judge in his impugned order while granting bail indicate that the case, indeed, on the facts herein, was one of further inquiry and, there fore, the discretion exercised, by him, in allowing bail in this case, has been properly exercised. No ground, therefore, is made out for interfering with the said order.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 17-6-1981 of the Sind High Court at Karachi in Cr. Bail Application No. 441 of 1981). _ S. 497-Bail-High Court releasing respondent on bail on ground of case being one of further inquiry, whether offence ' committed by respondent fell under Exception I to S. 300, Penal Code, 1860 or under S. 302 of such Code and whether respondent of 15 years of age as opined by doctor or about 16 years and 10 months as recorded in birth certificate--Grounds given by High Court in impugned order while granting bail indicating case being indeed one of further inquiry, discretion exercised by High Court, held, pro perly exercised and no ground made out for interference by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
_ S. 497-Bail-High Court releasing respondent on bail on ground of case being one of further inquiry, whether offence ' committed by respondent fell under Exception I to S. 300, Penal Code, 1860 or under S. 302 of such Code and whether respondent of 15 years of age as opined by doctor or about 16 years and 10 months as recorded in birth certificate--Grounds given by High Court in impugned order while granting bail indicating case being indeed one of further inquiry, discretion exercised by High Court, held, pro perly exercised and no ground made out for interference by Supreme Court. Aftab Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate on Record for Petitioner. N.
1. Memon, Additional Advocate-General (Sind) for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th August 1981. NAM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 17-6-1981 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court at Karachi releasing Muhammad Ismail, respondent No. 2 herein, on bail on the ground that the case was one of further injury, namely, requiring determination whether the offence committed by the said respon dent fell under Exception 1 of section 300, P. P. C., or it fell under sec tion 302, P. P. C., as all edged by the prosecution. A further matter, which required further inquiry, was whether the said respondent was 15 years of age as opined in the medical evidence or about 16 years and 10 months of age, as recorded in the birth certificate. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate-General Sind (who has supported the order of the learned Judge of the High Court), we feel that the grounds given by the learned Single Judge in his impugned order while granting bail indicate that the case, indeed, on the facts herein, was one of further inquiry and, there fore, the discretion exercised, by him, in allowing bail in this case, has been properly exercised. No ground, therefore, is made out for interfering with the said order. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby. Petition dismissed.