1978 PLP 32 (SCMR)
GUL BOSTAN-Petitioner Versus CHAMAN BADSHAH AND 2 OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1978 PLP 32 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Dorab Patel and Ghulam Safdar Shah, JJ |
| Parties | GUL BOSTAN-Petitioner Versus CHAMAN BADSHAH AND 2 OTHERS — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution Procedure Cods (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 32 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution Procedure Cods (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLP 32 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Dorab Patel and Ghulam Safdar Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP 32 (SCMR) (GUL BOSTAN-Petitioner Versus CHAMAN BADSHAH AND 2 OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amirzada Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th November 1977.
- Amirzada Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court. Peshawar, dated 6th October 1976, in Criminal Miscellaneous 577 of 1976).
S. 497(5)-Bail, cancellation of-First medical examination of accused for ascertaining his age carried cut on orders of Inquiry Magistrate but trial Judge not being satisfied with such examination, same having not been based on X-ray of accused, ordering fresh examination-Held Procedure adopted laudable and not open to criticism-Admission of accused to bail on ground of no overt act having been attributed to accused, held, grope' and not open to Inter ference.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 5th November 1977. G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.‑This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order of Peshawar High Court dated 6‑12‑1976 by which the application of petitioner seeking the cancellation of bail, granted to the two respondents by the trial Court was dismissed. The order of the High Court would show that accused Chaman Badahah was found to be 16/17 years old and so the bail granted to him on that ground was proper. However, the order does not mention as to on what ground the other accused was enlarged on bail. But is situation seems to be covered by the order of the learned trial Judge who held that since no overt act bad been attributed to him, he too eras entitled to bail. The learned counsel has taken exception to the order of the High Court on the ground Inter alia (l) that accused Chaman Badshah was found by the Medical Superintendent, Bannu to be 17 years old and (ii) that the learned` trial Judge had erred by referring accused Chamin Badshah for second medical examination. There seems to be no force in either of these contentions. It is true that Medical Superintendent, Bannu had opined that Chaman Badshah was 17 years old but his opinion was not shared by the subsequent two medical examinations (in which ho was X‑rayed) in consequence of which he was found to be 16‑17 years old. It is therefore, obvious to us that finding of the High Court In this respect (bared 3s it is on proper material) cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. The learned counsel is factually wrong to contend that it was the trial Judge who had sent accused Chaman Badshah for second medical examination. He conceded that the first medical examination of Chaman Badaha had been carried out on the orders of examination, however, the learned trial was not based on any X‑Ray of accused. This procedure, Instead of be in subjected to criticism, should be lauded the learned trial Judge seems to have taken care to all that is possible to satisfy himself about the correct ages of accused. The learned Counsel has not made any grievance of the fact that the co-accused of Chaman Badshah was not entitled to bail. The finding of the learned trial Judge is that no overt act had been attributed to this accused. We are, therefore satisfied that the impugned order of the High Court is proper and so needs on interference. This petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. Petition dismissed.