Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 1790 2008 SLD 1790 2008 SCMR 1206
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No.534 of 2003, heard on 28-03-2005.(On appeal from the judgment, dated 24-11-2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1245/B of 2003)
MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN AND M. JAVED BUTTAR, JJ
Malik Muhammad Kabir, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Sardar M. Siddique Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents

Haji Mian ABDUL RAFIQUE

VS

RIAZUDDIN and another

Law:

Section:

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Cancellation of bail, refusal of---All the prosecution witnesses except one or two had been examined in the case and this ground alone was sufficient for not interfering with the impugned order of High Court granting bail to accused at present stage, moreso when the cancellation of bail was sought on merits of the case and the accused was not alleged to have misused the concession of bail---Leave to appeal was declined to complainant in circumstances. ORDER MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.--- The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby the application for the grant of bail of respondent No.1 was accepted and he was granted bail. 2. According to the prosecution story the deceased who is the wife of the accused-respondent was murdered in the house of the accused and the report was lodged by her brother in the police station. During the investigation, statements of some witnesses were recorded who have stated in their statement that they have seen blood on the hands and cloths of the respondent No.1 and the statement of Arshad Mehmood was also recorded with regard to the extra-judicial confession made by the accused-respondent before him. The learned High Court attending to all the circumstances of the case with regard to the delay in recording the statements of the witnesses i.e. by seven days and 8 days respectively had arrived at the conclusion that reasonable grounds exist for believing that he is not guilty of the offence and the case is of further inquiry. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant as well as for the accused-respondent and the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of…
🔒
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