Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUBARIK SHAH VS Respondent: The STATE
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Shafi-ur-Rehman Title: MUBARIK SHAH vs The STATE Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 214 of 1986 Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1162-B of 1966 Date of Judgment:1986-07-25 Reported As: 1986 SCMR 1681 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, dated 17-5-1986 refusing him bail after arrest in a case registered against him and three others under sections 302/34 and 307/34, P.P.C. At Police .Station Saddar, Faisalabad on 27-8-1983. Earlier, the bail before arrest of the petitioner was cancelled by this Court observing that "This order will, however, not preclude him from moving petition for bail after arrest and is being dealt with on its own merits." When the petitioner moved the application for bail after surrendering to the order his application was rejected by the learned Session Judge observing "in this case not only the role of shouting --- lalkara--- is attributed to the petitioner but in fact the actual motive is also attributed to him". The High Court after taking note of the facts upheld that order observing as follows:- "The whole case of the complainant party is that the petitioner traffics in narcotics and that the other three co-accused are his servants and agents. The fatal Lalkara is attributed Lo the petitioner, which led to indiscriminate use of first arms by the other three co-accused'. Without going on the record as having given any finding in the matter, 1 would only say for the limited purposes of this bail petition, that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail." The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken up the same ground before us, viz., the proverbial Lalkara and no other role being attributed to him. We have heard the learned counsel at length and find that his submission has been duly taken note of by both the Courts, and a prima facie view of the entire available material has been formed. Which even to us at this stage, does not appear exceptionable or requiring correction. Hence leave to appeal is refused.