SARDARA AND Others vs GHULAM RASUL AND Another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court cancelling the bail previously granted to twelve petitioners by a Sessions Court. The petitioners were charged with murder and attempted murder as members of an unlawful assembly. The High Court had cancelled the bail, finding the Sessions Court's reasoning flawed, particularly regarding its reliance on police reports and the nature of injuries sustained. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners did not press the plea regarding the six individuals alleged to have carried firearms. However, they contested the cancellation for the five individuals alleged to have carried lathis and one individual, Noora, accused of abetment. The Supreme Court held that the allegation against Noora constituted a substantial part of the prosecution case. Regarding the lathi-wielders, the Court determined that their presence could not be deemed superfluous without a full evidentiary trial, as they might have been intended to ensure the success of the enterprise. Consequently, the Court found the High Court's discretion in cancelling bail to be correct and dismissed the petition.
- Can bail be cancelled if the initial order granting bail relied on invalid reasoning?
- Is the presence of members of an unlawful assembly considered superfluous if they did not personally cause injury?
- Does an allegation of abetment constitute a substantial ground for denying bail in a murder case?
ORDER
1. CORNELIUS, C. J.-The petitioners twelve in number were granted bail by a Sessions Court of Gujrat.
2. They were charged for offences of murder and attempt to murder while being members of an unlawful assembly. Six of them were alleged to have carried guns, and five others to have carried lathis. The twelfth Noora was alleged to have deliberately. Created a situation in which the attack could be made.
3. A learned Single Judge in the High Court cancelled the bail orders, holding that the reasons given by the Sessions Judge lacked validity. The Sessions Judge had relied on reports of the Crimes Branch of the Police as well as that the shots fired by certain of the petitioners had only caused minor injuries to companions of the deceased. Leave is sought to appeal against the High Court's order.
4. The petition is not pressed in regard to the six men who were alleged to have carried guns, but as to the five alleged lathi-men, it is said that they caused no injury, and moreover their presence was not necessary for carrying out the alleged design, as there were only four men in the party to be attacked. A plea that Noora's name too had been falsely included, was also made.
5. The allegation against Noora is a substantial part of the prosecution case, and makes out abetment. As to the lathi-men, it cannot be said without a full examination through evidence, of all the circumstances, that their presence was superfluous. The expectation may have been that more than four persons had to be overcome, and it is possible too that they went to make sure of the success of the enterprise in case the shots from fire-arms failed to find their mark.
6. A correct discretion has been exercised in canceling the bail granted by the Sessions Court. We dismiss this petition.