Law:

Section:

(a) Appeal to Supreme Court-----Supreme Court does not interfere with purely discretionary orders unless discretion exercised perversely. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ---S. 496-Bail pending appeal-No general rule that accused, in bailable offence entitled as of right to be enlarged on bail during pendency of appeal against conviction-Bail discretionary with Court. There can be no such general rule that a person convicted of a bailable offence is entitled as of right to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of his appeal against his conviction. Bail is always in the discretion of the Court and this discretion has of necessity, therefore, to be exercised upon the facts and circumstances of each case according to sound judicial principles. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- --Ss. 426, 496 & 497--Bail pending appeal-Powers under S. 426 not controlled by provisions of Ss. 496 & 497 although principles laid down therein to be borne in mind in granting or refusing bail. Hata and others v. The State P L D 1967 Lah. 1302 ref. M. Dilawar Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for the State. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th October 1968. JUDGMENT HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.-The respondent Shah Sawar who has been convicted under section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code by the Sessions Court of Jhelum and sentenced to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment, filed an appeal against his conviction in the High Court of West Pakistan. This appeal admitted to regular hearing and the said respondent was enlarged on bail by an order passed on the 28th June 1968, relying upon an earlier decision of the same High Court in the case of Hata and others v. The State (P L D 1967 Lah. 1302). The State has now applied for leave to appeal from this…

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