Case ID |
398748a3-bb27-4411-9cc1-2a5705a25674 |
Body |
View case body. Login to View |
Case Number |
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. |
Decision Date |
Dec 23, 1986 |
Hearing Date |
|
Decision |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order which had refused bail to the petitioner, Muhammad Aslam. The court noted that the petitioner was involved in serious criminal activities under section 302, read with section 34 of the Penal Code and had a history of absconding. The court agreed with the trial court's assessment that granting bail would impede the progress of the case, leading to the dismissal of the petition. |
Summary |
This case revolves around a petition for special leave to appeal concerning the refusal of bail to Muhammad Aslam, who is accused under serious charges including murder as per section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court evaluated the circumstances surrounding the bail refusal, including the petitioner's prior criminal activities and history of absconding. The court found that releasing him on bail could obstruct the judicial process. The decision emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal process and ensuring that individuals who pose a significant risk to the progress of a case do not receive bail. This case highlights critical aspects of criminal procedure and the stringent conditions under which bail may be granted. It serves as a reference point for future cases involving bail applications in serious criminal offenses. |
Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
Entities Involved |
Not available
|
Judges |
Aslam Riaz Hussain,
Javid Iqbal,
Saad Saood Jan
|
Lawyers |
Shamim Abbas Bokhari,
Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri
|
Petitioners |
Muhammad Aslam
|
Respondents |
The State
|
Citations |
1987 SLD 287,
1987 SCMR 275
|
Other Citations |
Not available
|
Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
|
Sections |
Art. 185(3),
S. 497,
S. 302/34
|