2004 S C M R 864

2004 S C M R 864

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Tanvir Ahmed Khan, KhalilurRehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ

YAROOPetitioner

Versus

THE STATERespondent

Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.347L of 2002, decided on 16th December, 2002.

(On appeal from the order dated 1542002 of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench, Multan, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.643/B of 2002).

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/324/148/149Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)Bail, grant ofAllegations against the accused were of general nature, no injury, whatsoever to the deceased had been attributed to the accused and accused was in jail for the last more than one yearSupreme Court, in view of facts and circumstances of the cases, converted the petition for leave to appeal into appeal and admitted the accused to bail.

Abdul Aziz Khan Niazi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

A.H. Masood, Advocate Supreme Court with Niaz Hussain, SubInspector Police with record for the State.

Date of hearing: 16th December, 2002.


ORDER

TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 1542002 whereby postarrest bail application of the petitioner was declined by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, in a case emanated out of F.I.R. No.52 of 2001 registered on 1872001 at Police Station Shah Wali, District Rajanpur, under sections 302/324/748/149, P. P. C.

The facts succinctly narrated for the disposal of this petition are that the aforesaid F.I.R. was registered at the statement of one Nawab to the effect that on the fateful day the petitioner alongwith his coaccused launched murderous assault on the complainant party resulting into death of Elahi Bakhsh, brother of the complainant, and inflicted injuries to Irshad Ali and to him (i.e. the complainant). It was also stated in he F.I.R. that from the firing of coaccused Nawab, his brother Ali Bakhsh also sustained injuries. The petitioner is alleged to have been armed with a Soti and general allegations of causing injuries to the witnesses were levelled against him alongwith Ganwar and Sher Khan, who too were armed with Soties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there are allegations of general nature against the petitioner and his two co-accused for causing injuries to the witnesses. He has contended that in fact complainant side was the aggressor. According to him, it is a case of double version and the petitioner, being an elderly person, is entitled to be enlarged on bail as he is in jail for the last more than one year. He has further stated that the petitioner has filed a private complaint against the complainant party and the learned Judicial Magistrate has summoned six of their coaccused.

We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their assistance. We have noticed that the allegations against the petitioner are of general nature. No injury whatsoever has been attributed to him to the deceased. He is in jail for the last more than one year. Keeping in view the afore-stated facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, this petition is converted into appeal and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The appeal stands disposed of in the terms stated above.

M.B.A./Y14/S                                                                                                Bail granted.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P L D 2016 Supreme Court 358

P L D 2016 Supreme Court 358 Present: Mian Saqib Nisar, Iqbal Hameedur Rehman and Tariq Parvez, JJ Sahabzadi MAHARUNISA and another---Appellants/Petitioners Versus Mst. GHULAM SUGHRAN and another---Respondents Civil Appeals Nos. 1176 and 1177 of 2015, and Civil Petition No.1428-L of 2015.           (Against the order dated 11-6-2015 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench passed in C.M. Nos. 385, 388/2009 and 2051 of 2015) (a) Words and phrases --- ----"Merge" and "merger"---Definitions.             Chambers English Dictionary 7th Edn.; Oxford English Dictionary (1933); Corpus Juris Secoundum (1936) and The Constitution of India by Prof. S.R.Bhansali ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) --- ----S.12(2)---Application under S.12(2), C.P.C, filing of---Forum---"Court which passed the final judgment, decree or order"---Principles---For all legal purposes, it was the final decree/order of the last Court in ...
Read more

P L D 2009 Lahore 362

P L D 2009 Lahore 362 Before Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Tariq Shamim and M.A. Zafar, JJ GHULAM MURTAZA and another---Appellants Versus THE STATE---Respondent Criminal Appeal No.284-J of 2008, decided on 27th March, 2009. (a) Administration of justice--- ----Principles---Quintessence of the Civilization's evolution and growth in the legal field is a progression from dispensation of justice according to the principle of "justice, equity and good conscience" to "justice according to law"---Rationale or raison d'etre for this momentum, quite easy to discern and comprehend, is that justice ought not to be administered according to whims, caprice or subjective standards of an individual judge but it should be dispensed according to some codified or stipulated standards so as to render the outcome consistent and reasonably predictable---Predictability of judicial response to an action or inaction of a person is important because, by and large, people livi...
Read more

2010 SCMR 1181, Supreme Court Allowed Superdari

2010 SCMR 1181 [Supreme Court of Pakistan] Present: Nasir-ul-Mulk, Raja Fayyaz Ahmad and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ ALLAH DITTA----Petitioner Versus THE STATE----Respondent Criminal Petition No.461 of 2009, decided on 12th February, 2010. (On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court Lahore dated 3-6-2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.674 of 2009). (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 74, Proviso---`Any private individual'---Meaning and scope ---Phrase "any private individual" is to be read ejusdem generis with the preceding specific words, "accused, or his associate or relative' ---By application of the rule the "private individual" mentioned in the proviso refers to such an `individual who has some nexus with the offender or the offence-I-Innocent owner of the vehicle used in the commission of the crime having no nexus whatsoever, either with the accused or the crime, would not fall within the scope of the ph...
Read more