MAQSOOD AHMED vs MUHAMMAD NAZIR alias NAZIR ALI and another
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which granted post-arrest bail to the respondent, Muhammad Nazir alias Nazir Ali, in connection with F.I.R. No. 397 dated 22-10-2001, registered under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, including sections 302, 324, 337-F(iii), 337-L(ii), 365, 365-A, 148, 149, and 109. The petitioner sought to challenge the High Court's order granting bail. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the contentions raised by both parties and the available record. The Court found that the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court had provided cogent and sufficient reasons for extending the concession of bail to the respondent. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal justification or error that would warrant the Supreme Court's interference with the impugned judgment. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it, thereby upholding the bail granted by the High Court.
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's grant of bail when cogent reasons have been provided?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable against an order granting post-arrest bail if no error is demonstrated?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 28-11-2002 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, has admitted respondent No,1 Muhammad Nazir alias Nazir Ali to post-arrest bail in an offence emanating out of F.I.R. No,397 registered on 22-10-2001 under sections 302/324/337-F(iii)/337-L(ii)/365/365- A/148/149/109, P.P.C. At Police Station Mumtazabad, Multan.
2. We need not give the facts of the case as the same have been amply given in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court.
3. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. We have noticed that the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has given cogent reasons while extending the concession of bail to respondent No, 1 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any justification warranting our interference in the impugned judgment.
4. Resultantly, this petition has no merit, which is accordingly, dismissed and .