1968 SCMR 50 (PLP)
SALEEM KHAN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 50 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | A. P. Cornelius, C. J, .and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J |
| Parties | SALEEM KHAN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 50 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 50 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: A. P. Cornelius, C. J, .and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 50 (PLP) (SALEEM KHAN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. Wajid Hussain, Senior Attorney Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 9th October 1967, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1 of 1967 Criminal Revision No. 1065 of 1967). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S- 426 & 498-Bail- Accused appellant A found armed with rifle and complainant found struck by bullet-Co-accused appellants B & C found to have carried shot guns but no injury caused by pellets suffered by complainant-High Court granting bail to B & C but refusing to A-Refusal to grant bail, held rested on a point of distinction. Nemo for the State,
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.--The petitioner stands convicted under section 307/34, P. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years. The High Court while admitting the revision petition filed against conviction and sentence has refused bail to him, but allowed bail to two of his co-accused. It is urged that there was no apparent ground to distinguish between the case of the petitioner and the co-accused who have been granted bail. The petitioner alone was armed with a rifle and the complainant was found to have been struck by a bullet. The other two accused carried shot guns, but no injury caused by pellets was suffered by the complainant. There was thus a point of distinction on which the refusal to grant bail to the petitioner rests. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. Petition dismissed.