LAL KHAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for post-arrest bail. The petitioner, Lal Khan, was accused alongside six others of offences under sections 307, 149, 147, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner inflicted hatchet blows using the reverse side of the weapon upon two individuals, Aslam and Khadim Hussain, causing grievous injuries to both, with one injury specifically declared dangerous to life. The Supreme Court examined the allegations and the nature of the injuries sustained by the victims. The Court held that the High Court was justified in refusing bail given the severity of the injuries attributed to the petitioner. Consequently, the Supreme Court determined that the case was not a fit one for the grant of leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the denial of bail.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when attributed with injuries declared dangerous to life?
- Does the infliction of grievous injuries with a weapon justify the refusal of bail in offences under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-Lal Khan petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 5-6-1983, dismissing his bail application. He is accused alongwith 6 others of offences under sections 307/149 and 147/148, P. P. C. He has been attributed hatchet blows from its reverse side to Aslam complainant as well as Khadim Hussain, P. W. On their heads. Both the injuries were found to be grievous and one of these was declared to be dangerous to life. The High Court was, therefore, justified in rejecting his bail application.
2. ' We do not, therefore, consider it a fit case for grant of leave. The petition is consequently dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- REHMAT KHAN alias REHMAN vs THE STATE 2005 YLR 1654