1996SCMR493 (PLP)
ABDULLAH KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL QAYYUM and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1996SCMR493 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ |
| Parties | ABDULLAH KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL QAYYUM and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | 'Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996SCMR493 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: 'Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996SCMR493 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996SCMR493 (PLP) (ABDULLAH KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL QAYYUM and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amjad Ahad Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing 17th May, 1994
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 15‑2‑199.4 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Cr. Misc. No. 431 /B of 1994). ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/109‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Cancellation of bail‑‑‑Bail cannot be withheld simply on the basis of statements supporting allegation of abatement made at a very belated stage‑‑‑High Court in allowing bail to accused had properly exercised its discretion which called for no interference ‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.‑‑‑Abdullah Khan petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 15‑2‑1994 whereby Abdul Qayyum respondent was admitted to bail in a case registered against him and others under section 302/109 of the P. P. C.
2. The case was registered on 16‑6‑1993 on the report of Mst. Haleema Khatoon wherein she alleged that on the said day she, her son Saif Ullah and their other relatives were going in a street when Abdul Gahfoor co‑accused of the petitioner armed with a rifle confronted them and after raising a Lalkara fired at Saif Ullah deceased hitting his abdomen as a result of which he later on died. The motive for the occurrence was that aforesaid Abdul Ghafoor was having an evil eye on the grown‑up daughters of the first informant, therefore, her husband and sons had forbidden him from visiting their house and had also given him beating. In the F.I.R. it was stated that the murder was committed at the instance of Abdul Qayyum petitioner herein.
3. The reasons which weighed with the High Court for granting bail to the petitioner were that he was not present at the spot nor there was any evidence to connect him with the commission of offence; he was found innocent by the S.H.O. during the investigation which was verified by the D.S.P.; he was not attributed any motive in the F:I.R. and in a subsequent investigation conducted by another D.S.P. he was found involved but there was no material to support.
4. Learned counsel of the petitioner contends that on 22‑6‑1993 (Le six days after the occurrence) two persons namely Haq Nawaz Khan and Habib Ullah had appeared before the Investigation Officer and supported the allegation of abetment, therefore, the observation of the High Court that there was no evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence is based on non‑reading of evidence. He submits that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause, therefore, it was not a fit case for the grant of bail.
5. The submission made by the learned counsel is without any substance. Bail cannot be withheld simply on the basis of statements supporting allegation of abetment made at a very belated stage. In allowing bail to the respondent the High Court has exercised the discretion in a proper manner, therefore, no interference with the impugned order is called for. Resultantly this petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./A‑1225/S Leave refused.