Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM SARWAR VS Respondent: KHALIL
1994 P Cr
1994 P Cr. L J 1385
[Lahore]
Before Rashid Aziz Khan, J
GHULAM SARWAR---Petitioner
Versus
KHALIL and others---Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous No.843/B of 1993, decided on 11thApril, 1993.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/148/149/337-A(i)/337-F(i)- --Cancellation of bail---Contention was that the accused had succeeded in obtaining bail from High Court by making misrepresentation to the effect that they had also got a case registered against complainant under S.302, P.P.C.---Section 302, P.P.C. had been mentioned in the order in place of S.337, P.P.C. under which the case was registered and except said clerical error rest of the facts were the same---Case was of counter-version---Accused were not alleged to have misused the concession of bail---Bail allowed to accused was not cancelled in circumstances.
Dr. Khalid Ranjha for Petitioner.
Ashfaque Ahmed Ghuman for the State.
Asghar Khan Rokhri for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 11thApril, 1993.
JUDGMENT
The facts leading to the filing of this application seeking cancellation of bail are that a case under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. read with sections 337-A(i) and 337-F(1), Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, vide F.I.R., dated 31-5-1992 was registered with Police Station Piplan, District Mianwali, against the respondents. The respondents applied for bail and were allowed the same on 9-1-1993, by this Court. In the present application learned counsel for the petitioner seeks cancellation of said bail.
It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents were not entitled to the concession of bail because they had not come to the Court with clean hands. It was argued that the respondents had by making misrepresentation succeeded in obtaining bail from the Court. It was pointed out that the main reason, which found favour with this Court for grant of bail was that, the respondents had also got a case registered under section 302, P.P.C. against the complainant side therefore, it was a case of counter version.
2. I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the order, dated 9-1-1993, whereby respondents were allowed bail. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct that section 302, P.P.C. was mentioned in the said order. In fact the respondent side had got a case registered under section 337, P.P.C. Said case was got registered with regard to the same occurrence in which a person lost his life and a case under section 302, P.P.C. was registered against the respondents. Except for clerical error, rest of the facts are the same. It was a case of counter-version. There is no allegation that the respondents have misused the concession of bail. I don't find any substance in the petition which is dismissed.
N.H.Q./G-206/L Petition dismissed.