Case Details

Citation(s)
1978 SLG 177 1978 SLD 177 1978 SCMR 235
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 11 R of 1978, decision dated: 22nd March 1978.
QAISAR KHAN AND GHULAM SAFDAR SHAH, JJ
Q. M. Salim, Advocate and Noor Ahmed Noori, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State

SHAHBAZ TUFAIL

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)Β¬----Ss. 497 & 498 Bail Contentions raised already urged before High Court in previous application although in different form Second application, held, rightly dismissed as disclosing no new grounds. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)Β¬ ---S. 497 & 498 Bail Question of self defence Can only be gone into by trial Court Superior Court, held, would avoid to matte any observations on such aspect of case. [Private defence, right of]. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) -- S. 497(l) & (2) proviso Young age Bail Claim for bail under proviso to S. 497(2) Held, cannot be claimed as a matter of right just because of petitioner accused being of tender years. [Bail Age]. ORDER GHULAM SAFDAR SHAH, J. This petition, which is directed against the order of learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, dated 5-2 1978, arises in the following circumstances : --- In a case under section 302, P. P. C. in which Shafqat was done to death, petitioner Shahbaz Tufail was arrested on or about 6 5 1977. In order to secure bail for himself, he went up to the High Court but his application was rejected on 16 10 1977. Thereafter petitioner filed a second application in the High Court for bail but the same also was dismissed by the impugned order. In the High Court the petitioner had sought bail on two grounds : "(1) That when the alleged crime was committed by him, he was a little over 16 years of age ; and (2) that he had done so in the right of his self defence." In support of these two contentions, quite a few judgments of this Court were cited by his learned counsel. But the learned Judge distinguished them saying that they had no application to the facts of the case The learned Judge further observed that the said two contentions had been urged before him in the previous application, although in a different form, and therefore, the second application moved by the petitioner for grant of bail would not lie because in there no new grounds had been mentioned. By going through the two orders of the learned Single Judge he seems to have rightly come to the said conclusion. The learned counsel for the, petitioner, however, urged that In…
πŸ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492