SHAH MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against the order of the Lahore High Court suspending the life imprisonment sentence and granting bail to respondents Nos. 2 and 3, who were convicted under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting bail and suspending sentence after a previous similar application was dismissed, and whether concealment of such prior dismissal affects the relief sought. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that the suppression of the earlier dismissal of the bail application by filing a subsequent application through different counsel constitutes reprehensible conduct disentitling the accused to the concession of bail. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that concealing the dismissal of a prior bail application in a subsequent application is a strong ground for recalling bail.
- Does the suppression of the fact that an earlier bail application was dismissed justify the cancellation of bail?
- Can an accused file a second application for the suspension of sentence on similar grounds after the dismissal of the first?
- Whether the High Court's order suspending sentence and granting bail after a prior rejection without noting the previous dismissal is sustainable?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 14-10-2002 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, suspended the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to respondents Nos.2 and 3 under section 302(b) read with section 34, P.P.C. In a case emanated out of F.I.R. No,265 of 1997 dated 26-8-1997 registered at Police Station Saddar, Mian Channu, District Khanewal, under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. And admitted them to bail.
2. ' After investigation of the case the challan against the respondents Mushtaq and Nawaz along with three others was submitted in the Court. After thrashing the entire evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khanewal, through his judgment, dated 31-10-2000 convicted the respondents along with their co-accused Nawab under section 302, P.P.C. For committing Qatl-e- Amd of one Mumtaz and sentenced them to imprisonment for life with a compensation of Rs,1,00,000 each under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. They were also extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
3. ' The respondents earlier moved an application for the suspension of their sentences before the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed through an order, dated 12-4-2001 on the ground that it would require deeper appraisal of evidence which would not be permissible at that stage. After the dismissal of the aforesaid application the respondents moved another application bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No,1 of 2002 wherein the factum of earlier dismissal of their application was not at all mentioned. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, through the impugned order admitted them to bail. Hence this petition for leave to appeal by the complainant.
4. ' We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire material placed on record with their assistance. It is regrettable to point out that the earlier application of the respondents for the suspension of their sentences was argued by the same learned counsel before the High Court who argued the second application on their behalf, out of which the present petition for leave has arisen. His plea is that the second application was filed by another counsel to the learned Judge at the time of subsequent hearing.
5. However, we have noticed that there is not an iota of reflection whether the filing and dismissal of the earlier application filed by the respondents was mentioned in the subsequent application nor the same is reflected from the order impugned. This suppression on the part Of the respondents by filing second application through different counsel is highly deprecated. They took similar ground in the subsequent application which was earlier considered and rejected. The conduct in the circumstances demonstrated by the respondents do not deserve at all to avail the concession of bail.
6. ' Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition is converted into appeal and is allowed. The to the respondents Nos.2 and 3 namely Mushtaq son of Wali Muhammad and Nawaz son of Wali Muhammad by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, through his order, dated 14-10-2002 is hereby recalled.
7. ' These are the reasons of our short order of even date.
8. Bail cancelled.