Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH ETC. VS Respondent: The STATE
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Nasim Hasan Shah, Aslam Riaz Hussain, M. S. H. Qureshi, Shafi-ur-Rehman Title: MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH ETC. vs The STATE Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 44 of 1982 Criminal Miscellaneous No. 22-B of 1982 Date of Judgment:1982-02-16 Reported As: 1982 SCMR 668 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER M. S. H. QURHBHI, J.--The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the order of the High Court rejecting their application for bail in a case under section 394, P. P. C. The petitioners and their co- accused Muhammad ' Rafi are alleged to have tried to take possession of a plot of land from the complainant and in the process to have inflicted dang blows on him and to have forcibly removed a timepiece and a tape-recorder containing a radio, belonging to him. It appears that Muhammad Ishaque, com--plainant in the case, had subsequently made a supplementary statement favouring Muhammad Rafi, alleging that he was empty-handed and had only raised' a lalkara. It is submitted that co-accused Muhammad Rafi, who is on bail granted by the trial Court, is a crippled person who could not carry or wield a stick and as such the assertion qua him made in the F. I. R. Was false, and that on account of two versions being given by the same complainant, the benefit should have gone to the present petitioners too. 2. We find that the original F. I. R. Had contained only a general allegation that the accused party had come armed with dangs and had inflicted injuries on the complainant. It had not been specifically alleged that Muhammad Rafi had carried a dang or bad inflicted injury. The learned Judge in the High Court considered the petitioner's contentions but had come to the view that the evidence so far collected, prima facie, supported the prosecution case. In the circumstance, we are not inclined to interfere with the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction by the High Court, particularly when no question of violation of a principle of law relevant to a bail matter arises. The petition is dismissed.