MUHARRAM vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the refusal of the Sind High Court to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is facing trial for murder. The core legal question was whether the High Court exercised its discretion arbitrarily or perversely in denying bail to the petitioner while granting it to a co-accused. The Supreme Court observed that the First Information Report specifically attributed a head injury caused by a hockey stick to the petitioner, which was corroborated by medical evidence indicating serious head injuries. The Court held that the High Court’s refusal to grant bail was a valid exercise of discretion, as the mere fact that a co-accused received bail did not necessitate the same relief for the petitioner, especially given the distinct allegations against him. The Court affirmed that bail is a discretionary matter and found no error in the lower court's decision. However, acknowledging the petitioner's prolonged incarceration, the Court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings, noting that the petitioner may re-apply for bail if inordinate delay persists.
- Does the grant of bail to a co-accused automatically entitle another accused to bail?
- Is the refusal of bail by a High Court considered arbitrary when medical evidence supports specific allegations against the accused?
- Can an accused re-apply for bail on the grounds of inordinate delay in the trial proceedings?
ORDER
1. DORAB PATEL, J.-Ramzan son of Allah Rakhio was attacked at about 5-30 p. m., in the bazar of Kazi Ahmad (Sind) on 21-11-1976. He later succumbed to his injuries and the petitioner together with his two brothers, Hayat and Allah Warayo and his father Murid are being tried for the murder.
2. According to the F. I. R. Lodged by the said Allah Rakhio only the proverbial lalkara was attributed to Murid. On the other band, according to the F. I. R., the petitioner gave blows with a hockey stick to Ramzan on his head, whilst his brother Allah Warayo fired at him (Ramzan), and Hayat (the other brother of the petitioner) gave fists and kick blows to Ramzan. In view of the investigations, the Police arrested in due course the said Murid and his three sons including the petitioner.
3. Since Murid and the petitioner's brother Hayat were successful in obtaining bail pending their trial, the petitioner and his other brother Allah Warayo also applied for bail. But as the Sessions Court, Nawabshah dismissed the bail application by an order dated 6-5-1978, the petitioner and his brother Allah Warayo challenged this order in the Sind High Court. A learned Judge of the High Court allowed the bail application of Allah Warayo, but as he dismissed the petitioner's bail application, by his order dated 26-8-1978, the petitioner has filed this petition for leave.
4. Mr. Memon relied principally on the fact that the learned Judge had granted bail to Allah Warayo, although he used a fire-arm, and it was not disputed that the deceased had a fire-arm injury. But although the deceased was hit by a bullet, the report of the Ballistic Expert was negative, therefore, merely because the High Court granted bail to Allah Warayo, this does not mean that it erred in law in refusing the petitioner's prayer for bail. And, on the other hand, according to the F. I. R., the petitioner had hit the deceased on the head with a hockey stick, therefore, we enquired from learned counsel whether this allegation was supported by the medical evidence and by the statements recorded by the Police. Learned counsel admitted that the medical evidence showed that the deceased had injuries on the head which were of a serious nature. In these circumstances, the question of the grant of bail was within the discretion of the learned Judge and it cannot be said that the learned Judge exercised his discretion arbitrarily or perversely in refusing bail to the petitioner:' Therefore, no case has been made out for the grant of special leave.
5. Learned counsel then submitted that the petitioner had been languishing in jail for two years and that there was no chance of the case being tried in the near future in view of the heavy arrears of work in the Sessions Court, Nawabshah. We are disturbed by this aspect of the case and we hope that the case will be disposed of expeditiously by the Sessions Court. However, if there be inordinate delay in the hearing of the case, the petitioner would be free to apply for bail. With these observations, the petition is dismissed.