2005 PLP 1646 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SULTAN and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1646 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmed Khan, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SULTAN and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1646 (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 2005 PLP 1646 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmed Khan, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1646 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SULTAN and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.G. Tariq Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing; 10th December, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 1-8-2002 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.4881/B of 2002 by the Lahore High Court, Lahore).
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/148/149
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
High Court had exercised its discretion in declining the post-arrest bail to accused by examining the record
Cogent reasons had been given by High Court to arrive at the said conclusion
No reason was available to interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court
Leave to appeal was refused to accused by Supreme Court in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
TANVIR AHMAD KHAN, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 1-8-2002 whereby post-arrest bail application of the petitioners was dismissed.
2. We have considered the contentions and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. We have noticed that the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has exercised his discretion in declining the post-arrest bail to the petitioners by examining the record. He has given cogent reasons to arrive at the conclusion. It would be appropriate to reproduce the determination of the learned Single Judge in this regard which are in the following terms:
"Admittedly, the venue of occurrence belongs to the complainant side. All the accused do not live near the place of occurrence. They composed themselves into an unlawful assembly while variously armed and in prosecution of the common object of the said unlawful assembly came down to the Dhari of the complainant and launched a brutal assault upon them. They could be arrested during course of investigation on 11-5-2002 and accusations brought against them can entail maximum sentence in this case. There is enough material to state at this stage that the accused side assumed the aggressive role and for that reason the complainant side was well within their legal right to defend their person and property. They could scare off the assailants and could also inflict as many injuries as possible to fend off the attack in order to staive off the danger of being killed at the hands of their assailants. Mere old age is no ground for allowing bail in such-like cases. Old age unless accompanied by infirmity, senility and illness would not be sufficient for enlargement of the accused on bail. Additionally, it may be mentioned here that they were found linked with the commission of crime in question."
3. In view of what has been noticed above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused. N.H.Q./M-895/S Leave refused.