1983 PLP 278 (SCMR)
IMRANUDDIN AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 278 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | IMRANUDDIN AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 278 (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 1983 PLP 278 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 278 (SCMR) (IMRANUDDIN AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Hakim Khan. Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M. Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 15th November, 1982.
- Abdul Hakim Khan. Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M. Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi, Bench in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 412-B of 1982, dated 17-10-1982). -- Ss. 497 & 498 read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 307/ 148/149-Bail-Murder-Cross-case High, Court's order refusing bail to petitioners offering from no legal infirmity such as requiring inter ference by Supreme Court - Mere fact that in cross-case persons charged for having caused injuries have been released on bail-Held, no ground for releasing petitioners on bail particularly when allegations against them are more serious-Leave to appeal refused-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3). Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑The two petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 17‑10‑1982 whereby their application for bail on charges under section 302/307/149/148, P. P. C. was rejected. The prosecution case, in brief, against the petitioners was that they along-with ten others attached the complainant party. Imranuddin fired a shot killing Muhammad Arshad. Asrar gave a toka blow on the head of Shada which he survived. The other companions of the petitioners inflicted injuries on other seven persons. The learned Judge in the High Court while rejecting the bail application held that the case against them was such that bail could not be granted. There was a direct charge against Imranuddin of firing a pistol shot killing thereby Muhammad Arshad and against Asrar of having given a toka blow on the head after receiving which Shada survived. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks bail on two grounds. Firstly it is contended that on the cross‑case filed by Farman an inquiry was held by a ‑Magistrate and in his report under section 202 of the Cr. P. C. he has reported that though Imranuddin does not get absolved from causing the death of Muhammad Arshad, some of the members of the complainant party were also responsible for the fight and the rioting and the injuries that were caused in the same occurrence. The other ground taken is that as in the cross‑case the accused charged by the petitioners and their companions have been admitted to bail the petitioners should also receive similar or equal treatment in the matter of bail. We have attended to all the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and find that the High. Court's order suffers from no legal infirmity such as may require interference by this Court. The reasons given by the, High Court are sound and merely because in the cross‑case the persons charged for having caused injuries have been released on bail is no ground for releasing the petitioners on bail, particularly so when the allegations against them are more serious. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. Petition dismissed.