Case Details

Citation(s)
1989 SLG 2007 1989 SLD 2007 1989 SCMR 1987
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.83-R of 1989, decision dated: 12-06-1989. (From the judgment/order of the Peshawar High Court, dated 8-04-1989 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.804 of 1988).
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH AND NAIMUDDIN, JJ
M. Yousuf Saraf, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Manzoor Elahi. Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Said Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Zahoor Oureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for
Respondents Nos.1 and 2.

KHAN MIR

VS

AMAL SHERIN alias KAMAL and 2 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss.87 & 88--Abscondence--No proceedings under Ss. 87 & 88, Cr.P.C. were taken against the accused--Plea of abscondencc thus not of much consequence. Liaqat Ali v. Masal Khan and another 1980 SCMR 208 and Fazal Muhammad v. Muzaffar Hussain etc. 1981 SCMR 959 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---Ss.497(5), 87 & 88--Bail, cancellation of--Contention that High Court had not considered abscondence of accused while rejecting bail cancellation application against accused-respondents--No proceedings under Ss.87 & 88, Cr.P.C. were taken against the accused in respect of their abscondence--Held no case for interference with the exercise of discretion by the two Courts below was made out--Petition dismissed. ORDER NAIMUDDIN, J.--By this petition the petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of the High Court, dated 29-4-1989 whereby his application for cancellation of the bail granted to Amal Sherin alias Kamal and Zahir Gul, both sons of Gul Sarwar, by the Sessions Judge, Karak, has been dismissed. 2. The reasons, which weighed with the learned Sessions Judge in granting bail were: "According to the medical evidence only one wound was found on the back of deceased of this case and whereas according to the F.I.R. the deceased was fired at by present petitioner as well as his two brothers Zahir Gul and Mawiz Gul with their Kalashnikoves. All these shots have been stated in the F.I.R. to have proved effective. The medical evidence obviously contradicts the ocular version and there is no independent witness although the occurrence is stated to have taken place in the village in broad daylight." 3. In support of the application for cancellation of bail, it was urged that the respondents had absconded after the occurrence for about three months and this factor was ignored by the learned Sessions Judge in granting bail to them. On this ground the High Court observed as follows:- "I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties very seriously. No doubt both the respondents remained fugitives from law for about three months but it is also a fact that three persons…
🔒
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