1986 PLP 1380 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus ZAFAR ULLAH and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1380 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus ZAFAR ULLAH and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1380 (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 1986 PLP 1380 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1380 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus ZAFAR ULLAH and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Saeed Hassan, Advocate with S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on -Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Mian Nusratullah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing: 19th March, 1986.
- Malik Saeed Hassan, Advocate with S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on -Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 10-11-1985 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2764-B of 1985).
S. 497(5)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302--Bail, cancellation of--In a case of murder accused (respondent, was granted bail before arrest while other accused were granted bail after arrest--Petitioner choosing to challenge bail granted to accused (respondent) before arrest and not challenging bail granted to other accused after arrest although latter were falling in same category to which accused (respondent) belonged--Prima facie case of petitioner not distinguishable from that of other: to whom bail had been allowed--Held, no useful purpose was likely to be served if bail of accused (respondent) was cancelled on any technical ground because after arrest he could again be allowed bail on the ground that similarly placed other accused were already on bail--Interference declined by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 10‑11‑1985 of the Lahore High Court; whereby in a case of murder, Zafar Ullah Khan respondent was allowed bail before arrest.
2. The case of murder was initially instituted against seven persons. The majority of them were not attributed any specific role in so far as the physical injuries to the victims are concerned. Accordingly, in this category the respondent was allowed bail before arrest and some others were allowed bail after arrest. The petitioner has chosen not to challenge the grant of bail after arrest to the other persons falling in the same category to which the respondent belongs. The distinction made according to the learned counsel, is based on the fact that he has been allowed bail before arrest.
3. After hearing the learned counsel we feel that prima facie, at this stage, the case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from that of others to whom bail has been allowed. No useful purpose would be served if the bail of Zafar Ullah Khan respondent is cancelled on any technical ground because after arrest he would again be allowed bail on the ground that similarly placed other accused are already on bail. We, therefore, in the circumstances of this case, do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. This petition accordingly, is dismissed. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.