MUHAMMAD SULTAN and others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' application for post-arrest bail. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court properly exercised its judicial discretion in denying bail after examining the evidentiary record. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the High Court, which noted that the petitioners had formed an unlawful assembly, were armed, and initiated a brutal assault at the complainant's property, thereby justifying the complainant's right to self-defense. The Supreme Court further affirmed the High Court's reasoning that old age, without accompanying infirmity, senility, or illness, does not constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail in such cases. Finding that the High Court had provided cogent reasons for its decision and had properly exercised its discretion based on the material available, the Supreme Court held that there was no justification to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Does old age alone constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion exercised by a High Court in refusing bail if cogent reasons are provided?
- Is the right of private defense available to a complainant side when facing an armed unlawful assembly?
ORDER
' TANVIR AHMAD KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 1-8-2002 whereby post-arrest bail application of the petitioners was dismissed.
2. We have considered the contentions and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. We have noticed that the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has exercised his discretion in declining the post-arrest bail to the petitioners by examining the record. He has given cogent reasons to arrive at the conclusion. It would be appropriate to reproduce the determination of the learned Single Judge in this regard which are in the following terms:--- "Admittedly, the venue of occurrence belongs to the complainant side. All the accused do not live near the place of occurrence. They composed themselves into an unlawful assembly while variously armed and in prosecution of the common object of the said unlawful assembly came down to the Dhari of the complainant and launched a brutal assault upon them. They could be arrested during course of investigation on 11-5-2002 and accusations brought against them can entail maximum sentence in this case. There is enough material to state at this stage that the accused side assumed the aggressive role and for that reason the complainant side was well within their legal right to defend their person and property. They could scare off the assailants and could also inflict as many injuries as possible to fend off the attack in order to staive off the danger of being killed at the hands of their assailants. Mere old age is no ground for allowing bail in such- like cases. Old age unless accompanied by infirmity, senility and illness would not be sufficient for enlargement of the accused on bail. Additionally, it may be mentioned here that they were found.
Linked with the commission of crime in question."
3. In view of what has been noticed above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. .