Case Details

Citation(s)
1975 SLG 3306 = 1975 SLD 3306 = 1975 PLD 680
Lahore High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2519/B of 1974, decided on 22nd October 1974.
Presented By: Mazhar-ul-Haq, J
Emperor v. Jiwan Lal Gauba 164 I C 376 ref. Ch. Zamir Ahmad Khan for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan for the State.

GHULAM-Petitioner

VERSUS

STATE-Respondent

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497, 498

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Ss. 497 & 498-Bail in non-bailable offences--Accused charged with non-compoundable offence-Not supposed to approach complainant or witnesses-Cancellation, on ground of tampering with evidence --Accused admitting having approached complainant through others ("Pir" and "panchayat") and asked for pardon--Bail, in circumstance, held, rightly cancelled-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302. [This case was earlier reported in April issue as P L D 1975 Lah. 301. It transpired that a full page of the judgment of his Lordship was not printed. It inadvertantly happened for the reason that this page was missing in the copy supplied to us. The case is, therefore, being reproduced is full].                                                                                                                                  ORDER Ghulam petitioner and 4 others are accused for the murder of one Faiz Ahmad. The inquiry against them is in progress before a Magistrate at Okara in District Sahiwal. Petitioner is 70 years old and was attributed the role of raising a lalkara only. He was, therefore, allowed bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal on 21-3-74. Later, the complainant made an application for the cancellation of his bail before the same Court at Sahiwal, on the ground that the petitioner was intimidating and harassing the witnesses by approaching them through their `Pir'. 2. Though in his affidavit before the Sessions Judge, the petitioner denied these allegations, but on verbal inquiry made by the learned Sessions Judge, he admitted to have approached the witnesses, and also admitted having asked the complainant to pardon him. He also admitted to have approached the complainant through his "Pir" and a Panchayat. These admissions were considered by the learned Sessions Judge as…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register