Pakistan Case Law
1975 SCMR 243

SAFDAR SHAH vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1975 SCMR 243
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No, 134 of 1974
Date1974-05-10
Judge(s)Waheduddin Ahmed and Muhammad Gul
Authored byWaheeduddin Ahmed
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Safdar Shah against the dismissal of his pre-trial bail application by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner was committed under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Khurshid. The core legal question concerned the availability of bail after a commitment order where prosecution witnesses allegedly did not incriminate the accused. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the petitioner had already been committed to stand trial before the Sessions Court, the proper course of action was for the petitioner to approach the Sessions Court directly for bail. The petition was dismissed with the observation that the Sessions Court should decide any fresh bail application uninfluenced by the observations previously made by the High Court.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • What is the proper forum for a bail application after an accused has been committed to stand trial before the Sessions Court?
  • Will observations made by the High Court in a bail petition influence a subsequent bail application before the Sessions Court?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
criminal murderbail applicationcommitment for trialSessions CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

ORDER

1. ' WAHEEDUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioner has been committed under section 302, P. P. C. For the murder of Khurahid by air. Shukat Ali, Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore, by order dated the 9th April 1974.

2. The petitioner moved an application for bail on the ground that n.Me of the prosecution witnesses examined by the learned Ia4uiry Magistrate has supported the prosecution case and no one has attributed anything incriminating 10 him. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, by order dated the 8th March 1974, naps dismissed this application. After going through the evidence, he observed that Tayyab Khan P. W. 3, has named the petitioner and has incriminated him it the crime. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.

3. Sardar Semi Hayat, learned counsel for the petitioner, has admitted that the petitioner had been committed for standing trial before the Sessions Court. In these circumstances, the proper course for the petitioner is to move the Sessions Court for bail. If any such application is moved by the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge will not be influenced by the observation made by the High Court, in the above-mentioned petition.

4. ' Subject to this remark, the petition is dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.