1977 PLP 52 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1977 PLP 52 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ----S. 497‑Bail‑Appellant's case easily distinguishable from that of another accused bailed out by High court Appellant alleged to have caused injuries to deceased, his case not at par with that of accused ''`' enlarged on bail‑Mere fact of appellant being 70 years of age, held, does not entitle him to concession of bail in circumstances.Bail. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 52 (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 1977 PLP 52 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ----S. 497‑Bail‑Appellant's case easily distinguishable from that of another accused bailed out by High court Appellant alleged to have caused injuries to deceased, his case not at par with that of accused ''`' enlarged on bail‑Mere fact of appellant being 70 years of age, held, does not entitle him to concession of bail in circumstances.Bail. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 52 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 9th June 1.976.
- Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General Punjab instructed by Ijaz Ali, Advocate for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 26‑3‑1976, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 734/B of 1976).
S. 497‑Bail‑Appellant's case easily distinguishable from that of another accused bailed out by High court Appellant alleged to have caused injuries to deceased, his case not at par with that of accused ''`' enlarged on bail‑Mere fact of appellant being 70 years of age, held, does not entitle him to concession of bail in circumstances.[Bail]. Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General Punjab instructed by Ijaz Ali, Advocate for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.‑‑According to the allegations of the prosecution the dupatta of the wife of Abdur Razak got accidentally stuck up with wangha carried by Abdul Ghaffar (P. W.), as he was passing by her through a lane. The complainant party took this as a deliberate act and they decides to avenge the insult. On the 8th October, 1975 at 5 p. m. Abdur Razak and Zulfiqar accused armed with larhis attacked Abdul Ghaffar while he was coming back to his village from the fields. On his alarm his father Muhammad Siddiq (deceased) and hi, uncle Shah Muhammad (P. W.) reached the place of occurrence. In the meantime, Muhammad Hussain, Muhammad Ali (petitioners Nos. 3 and 4) and Yasin (co‑accused) also reached there and joined with petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 in inflicting injuries on Muhammad Siddiq, Shah Muhammad and Abdul Ghaffar. Muhammad Siddiq later on died of these injuries in the hospital. The five accused persons applied to the High Court for bail. On the 26th March, 1976, a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court allowed bail to Yasin only on the ground that he was not attributed to have inflicted any injury to the deceased and the application of the remaining co‑accused was dismissed by him. In these circumstances, the four petitioners filed this application for special leave to appeal from the order passed by tile High Court refusing bail to them. On the 8th June, 1976, this Court allowed leave to appeal to Muhammad Hussain petitioner alone on the ground that lie was aged 70 years and his case was not distinguishable from that of Muhammad Yasin co‑accused who was allowed bail by the High Court. The application of the remaining petitioners for bail was, however, rejected. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in this appeal before us today. On verification from the record, it transpires that actually the case of Muhammad Hussain appellant is easily distinguishable from Muhammad Yasin, who was allowed bail by the High Court. Muhammad Hussain is alleged to have caused injuries to Muhammad Siddiq deceased and on that ground, therefore, his case is distinguishable from Yasin. The mere fact that he is stated to be aged 70 years does not entitle him to the concession of bail. In the circumstances this appeal has no force and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.