1988 PLP 1963 (SCMR)
ABDUR RASHID — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1963 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Anwarul Haq, Muhammad Gul and Muhammad Afzal Cheema, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUR RASHID — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1963 (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 1988 PLP 1963 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Anwarul Haq, Muhammad Gul and Muhammad Afzal Cheema, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1963 (SCMR) (ABDUR RASHID — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 9th February, 1976.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from an order of the Lahore High Court made on 29-8-1975 in Criminal - Miscellaneous No.3417-B of 1975).
S.497 (5)--penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.148 & 307/149--Bail, cancellation of--Grant of bail was justified on account of delay in completion of trial--Complainant was not able to enlighten as to the reasons for which delay had occurred--Order granting bail was not interfered with in circumstances. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
ANWARUL HAQ, J. ‑‑The petitioner is aggrieved by an order made by the Lahore High Court on 29‑8‑1975, whereby bail has been allowed to the respondents Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Sadiq in a case pending against them under sections 148 and 307149, P.P.C. for causing injuries to the petitioner. The learned Judge in the High Court has allowed bail to the respondents primarily for the reason that the injuries sustained by the present petitioner were simple in nature. It is submitted by the petitioner that the High Court has ignored the fact that the injuries were on the vital parts of the body including the chest and the abdomen, and, therefore, there was clear intention to cause the death of the petitioner. We consider that it is not necessary for us to express any opinion as to the merits of the case at this stage, as we feel that bail appears to be justified on account of the delay that has taken place in the completion of the trial against the respondents. The first information report was registered on the 13th of July, 1975, and so far the evidence of not even a single witness has been recorded by the trial Court. The petitioner was not able to enlighten us as to the reasons for which this delay has occurred. In the circumstances. It would not be proper for us to interfere with the grant of bail as' ordered by the High Court. The petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed. M.A.K./331/A‑SC Leave refused.