Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 143 1981 SLD 143 1981 SCMR 35
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No. 80-R of 1979, decision dated: 3rd December 1979.(On appeal from the order dated 17-9-1979 of Sind High Court at Karachi in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 926 of 1978)
ANWARUL HAQ, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J
Agha Aziz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Zafar Mahmood, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Yaqub Hussain Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Nemo for
Respondent No. 3.

MUHAMMAD ISMAIL

VS

HIDAYATULLAH AND 2 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--S. 497(5)-Bail, cancellation of-High Court empowered to examine question of cancellation of bail from various angles-Order cancelling bail and later granting bail by same Court-Held, does not amount to review of earlier order.--[Review]. Gulzar Hassan Shah v. Ghulam Murtaza and 4 others P L D 1970 S C 335 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-- ---S. 369 read with S. 497 (5)-High Court and Court of Session empowered not only to cancel bail granted by any other Court, but also bail granted by themselves-Section 369 even if made applicable to orders regarding grant of bail, same, held, would not apply to cancella­tion of bail, S. 369 saving matters otherwise provided by Criminal Procedure Code or any other law in force. ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal is sought 1-.y a com­plainant from the order of the Sind High Court dated 17-9-1979, refusing to cancel the bail granted by the same Court to the respondents in a case of attempted murder. The respondents were allowed bail by the Sessions Court. It was cancelled by the High Court mainly on the ground that the petitioner was then under 'medical treatment' and that the delay in the trial by then occasioned was not such as to exercise discretion in favour of the accused. However, bail was allowed to the respondents subsequently on consideration of the facts that the complainant side was not serious in producing the witnesses and that the injured was not in danger. The petitioner moved an application for cancellation which has been dismissed on the ground that in the circumstances of the case, the reversal of bail order would amount to review, which not being permissible, the remedy of the complainant was by way of appeal in the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended : that the respondents had not surrendered after the cancellation of bail by the High Court, therefore, there was no justification for allowing them pre-arrest bail ; that they misused the concession of bail by absenting during the trial on account of which non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued against them that the nature and number of injuries as also the…
🔒
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