AAMER SHAHZAD vs MUHAMMAD ASIM and anothers
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to the respondent, Muhammad Asim, in a criminal case registered under Section 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court exercised its judicial discretion properly in granting bail, particularly given allegations that the High Court had been misled regarding the medico-legal report and the First Information Report. The Supreme Court held that while there may have been a clerical error or slip of the pen in the High Court's order regarding the specific injury, this did not invalidate the essence of the decision. The Court observed that the investigation was complete and the respondent was awaiting trial. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no legal infirmity, arbitrariness, or jurisdictional error in the High Court's exercise of discretion. The principle laid down is that minor clerical errors in a bail order do not necessarily warrant interference by an appellate court if the underlying exercise of discretion remains sound and legally justified.
- Does a clerical error or slip of the pen in a High Court bail order automatically invalidate the order?
- Is the completion of investigation a relevant factor in determining whether to grant post-arrest bail?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretionary power of the High Court in granting bail?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the Lahore High Court order, dated 4- 3-2005 admitting respondent Muhammad Asim in a case under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C.
2. Precise allegations against the respondent appear to be that he dealt a hatchet blow on the person of injured Muhammad Zafar on frontal region of head which on examination was found to be 4.5 x 1 c.m. After X-ray of skull the injury was certified to be "Shajjah-iMudiha", falling under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. Maximum punishment for this offence provided under the law does not exceed 5 years.
3. Learned counsel attempted to argue that learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court was misled in observing that injury attributed to the respondent by means of hatchet on the person of Aamer Shahzad was not reflected in the Medico-legal report and the F.I.R. Be that as it may, on perusal of record including medico-legal certificates, we find that it was a bona fide slip of pen or a clerical error, which does not invalidate the essence of the order of the High Court.
4. Since the investigation had been completed and the respondent was behind the bars, awaiting his trial along with co-accused persons, discretion exercised by the High Court, in our considered opinion, does not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction.
5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any legal infirmity or arbitrariness in the impugned order, which does not warrant any interference. Petition is, therefore, dismissed and .
Cited by 2 cases
- Javed Ali Shaikh vs The State and others 2022 SHC 236
- NOWSHAD KHAN and another vs IRSHAD KHAN and another 2009 YLR 2123