1970 PLP 87 (SCMR)
SARDARA AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus GHULAM RASUL AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1970 PLP 87 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SARDARA AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus GHULAM RASUL AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 87 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 87 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 87 (SCMR) (SARDARA AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus GHULAM RASUL AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. B. Zaman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Bashir Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Maqbool Ahmad, Attorney for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 26th October 1967.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 25th September 1967, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2765 of 1967). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497-Bail granted to accused cancelled by High Court on ground that reasons given by Sessions Judge in granting bail lacked validity-Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court where it could not be said without full examination of evidence of all circumstances whether accused had been falsely implicated.
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS, C. J.‑The petitioners twelve in number were granted bail by a Sessions Court of Gujrat. They were charged for offences of murder and attempt to murder while being members of an unlawful assembly. Six of them were alleged to have carried guns, and five others to have carried lathis. The twelfth Noora was alleged to have deliberately. created a situation in which the attack could be made. A learned Single Judge in the High Court cancelled the bail orders, holding that the reasons given by the Sessions Judge lacked validity. The Sessions Judge had relied on reports of the Crimes Branch of the Police as well as that the shots fired by certain of the petitioners had only caused minor injuries to companions of the deceased. Leave is sought to appeal against the High Court's order. The petition is not pressed in regard to the six men who were alleged to have carried guns, but as to the five alleged lathi-men, it is said that they caused no injury, and moreover their presence was not necessary for carrying out the alleged design, as there were only four men in the party to be attacked. A plea that Noora's name too had been falsely included, was also made. The allegation against Noora is a substantial part of the prosecution case, and makes out abetment. As to the lathi-men, it cannot be said without a full examination through evidence, of all the circumstances, that their presence was superfluous. The expectation may have been that more than four persons had to be overcome, and it is possible too that they went to make sure of the success of the enterprise in case the shots from fire‑arms failed to find their mark. A correct discretion has been exercised in canceling the bail granted by the Sessions Court. We dismiss this petition. Leave refused.