| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1975 SLG 3045 = 1975 SLD 3045 = 1975 SCMR 257 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-5) of 1974, decided on 5th September 1974. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, dated the 5th July 1974, in Criminal Bail Application No. 398 of 1974).
Presented By: Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Salahuddin Ahmed, JJ
Muhammad Hayat Junejo, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Yusuf Rafi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Khalid M. Ishague, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Nizam Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-5) of 1974, decided on 5th September 1974. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, dated the 5th July 1974, in Criminal Bail Application No. 398 of 1974).
Presented By: Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Salahuddin Ahmed, JJ
Muhammad Hayat Junejo, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Yusuf Rafi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Khalid M. Ishague, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Nizam Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents.
Mst. ZOHRA BEGUM-Petitioner
VERSUS
ABDUL RASHID AND 5 OTHERS- Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 497, 302, 149
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 497-Bail-Prosecution case supported by two eye-witnesses and four more witnesses yet to be examined -All accused to be found guilty of offence under S. 302 read with S. 149 in case of acceptance of version of such witnesses-Not possible in circumstances to believe that no circumstances existed showing all accused to be guilty of an offence punishable with death. Date of hearing 5th September 1974. ORDER MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The five respondents are charged for the offence under section 302 read with section 149, P. P. C. The High Court has granted them bail. Counsel for the petitioner points out- (1) that the two incidents were distinct from each other in time. Indeed, the first incident constituted the motive for the assault on the deceased end the injured P. W~. 'The learned Chief Justice has however, juxtaposed both the incidents into one transaction and treated the first incident gas a circumstance in favour of the accused ; and (ii) that the accused were already armed with battles and it is not correct that they had picked up the bottles from the scene of crime as observed in the order granting bail. There is substance in both the contentions raised…