1991 PLP 80 (SCMR)
RIAZ HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus PEHLWAN SHAH and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 80 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Naimuddin, Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Ajmal Mian, JJ |
| Parties | RIAZ HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus PEHLWAN SHAH and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 80 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 80 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Naimuddin, Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Ajmal Mian, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 80 (SCMR) (RIAZ HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus PEHLWAN SHAH and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Afrasiab, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate- on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th June, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 25‑4‑1990 passed in Cr.Misc. Petition No.195/B‑90). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑High Court had granted bail to accused on consideration that he was attributed ineffective fire and was a boy of hardly 15/16 years of age‑‑ High Court had not exercised its discretion arbitrarily on irrelevant consideration or exercised the same against any well‑settled principles for grant of bail‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
NAIMUDDIN, J.‑‑Petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 25‑4‑1990 whereby bail was granted to Respondent No. 1, Pehlwan Shah. The facts briefly stated are that on 2‑11‑1989 at about Degarwela in the area of village Shamasabad when Gulzar Shah, deceased, was grazing his goats in the land, Pehlwan Shah armed with carbine and his two co‑accused Imtiaz Hussain Shah and Tasleem Hussain Shah, armed with hatchets attacked him. Pehlwan Shah is said to have fired an ineffective shot. Imtiaz Hussain Shah gave him two hatchet blows on the head followed by Tasleem Hussain Shah, who also gave him two hatchet blows in the chest region. Gulzar Shah was grievously injured, but he walked down to his house and did not lodge the report till 11‑11‑1989. On this date he died in his house and the matter was reported to police by his maternal‑uncle. The motive for the crime was that a year before the occurrence the deceased accompanied by certain accused caused injuries to the cousin of the accused/respondent and other co‑accused and a case under section 325, P.P.C. was pending against him and his companions. Although bail application was filed on behalf of the respondent and above‑named two accused but it was pressed only on behalf of the respondent. The learned Judge in Chamber granted the bail to the respondent on consideration that the respondent No. 1 has been attributed ineffective fire and he is a boy of hardly 15/16 years of age. In granting bail on the above considerations, we find that the learned Judge has not exercised his discretion arbitrarily on irrelevant consideration or exercised it against any well‑settled principles for grant of bails. We, therefore, find no merits in this petition and accordingly dismiss it. N.H.Q./R‑161/S Leave refused.