MUHAMMAD JAN AND 2 Others vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by Muhammad Jan, Bahadur Sher, and Gul Bar against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed their application for post-arrest bail. The petitioners were apprehended by police on the Peshawar-Kohat Road while transporting a truck containing contraband items, including 25 air-conditioners, a significant quantity of charas, and foreign cloth, with the vehicle's number plates removed. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing bail on the grounds that the petitioners' individual culpability required further inquiry. The Supreme Court rejected the petitioners' contention, holding that the material on record established a prima facie case of involvement for all three accused. The Court found no flaw in the High Court's exercise of discretionary jurisdiction regarding the denial of bail. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's order, while noting that the petitioners could reapply for bail if additional material became available later in the proceedings.
- Does the mere assertion that individual culpability requires further inquiry automatically entitle an accused to bail?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretionary refusal of bail when a prima facie case is established?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable against an order dismissing a bail application where no legal flaw is demonstrated?
ORDER
1. ASLAM RIAZ HUSAIN, J.-Muhammad Jan, Bahadur Sher and Gul Bar seek leave to appeal against an order of learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court dated 9th of June, 1979, dismissing the petitioners' bail application.
2. The petitioners are accused of smuggling and were caught during a Nakabandi by the police on 31st of March, 1979, on the Peshawar-Kohat Road. Muhammad Jan petitioner was driving the truck while Bahadur Sher and Gul Bar were sitting with him on the front seat. The number plates of the truck had been removed and on search the truck was found to contain 25 Air-Conditioners, a huge quantity of Chars and foreign cloth as well as other contraband items.
3. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the learned High Court Judge has refused bail on the ground, that it is too early to say as to which one of the petitioners is responsible for' smuggling and to what extent, it is a case of further inquiry. We are not impressed by this contention. On the material before us all the three petitioners are prima facie involved in the commission of the offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any flaw in the exercise of his discretionary jurisdiction by the learned High Court Judge.
4. We do not therefore consider it to be a fit case for interference with the order of the High Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, if so advised, he may apply for bail after some more material becomes available.
Cited by 1 case
- JAWAID AKHTAR BUTT vs THE STATE- 1981 P Cr. L J 379