SHAMRAIZ vs THE STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioner by the trial court in a criminal case involving double murder. The petitioner, who was named in the F.I.R. registered under sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, challenged the cancellation of his bail. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its discretion to cancel the bail. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's decision was based on the petitioner's involvement in other criminal cases, including an offense under the Arms Ordinance, and the specific attribution of firing shots with a Kalashnikov at vital parts of the deceased. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exercised its discretion in accordance with the law and established principles governing bail cancellation. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, affirming the cancellation of bail.
- Can a High Court cancel bail based on the petitioner's involvement in other criminal cases?
- Is the specific attribution of firing shots at vital parts of the deceased a valid ground for bail cancellation?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in bail cancellation matters when exercised in accordance with established principles?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance
- Section 20, Arms Ordinance
- Section 65, Arms Ordinance
ORDER
1. ' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, C.J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment and order dated 12-2- 2002 whereby learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court cancelled the bail of the petitioner arising from a criminal case vide F.I.R. No,360 of 1999 registered on 21-10-1999 under sections 302, 109, 148, 149, P.P.C. At Police Station Danga Tehsil Kharian District Gujrat.
2. In this occurrence two persons were murdered. The petitioner has been named in the Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition argued that the High Court without going through the record has wrongly cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner by the trial Court. The High Court while cancelling the bail took view that apart from the present case, the petitioner was involved in a number of cases including a case under section 13/20/65 of Arms Ordinance registered at Police Station Saddar Lalamusa. The firing of shots with Kalashnikov on the vital parts of both the deceased is specifically attributed to the petitioner, therefore, discretion exercised by the High Court in consonance with law and the principle laid down by this Court governing the same.
3. ' We do not find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
Cited by 1 case
- RASOOL BUX Versus State 2017 YLRN 131