MAQSOOD AHMED vs MUHAMMAD IRFAN and 2 otherss
This criminal revision petition sought the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gojra, in a case registered under sections 337-F(v), 337-F(i), 337-A(ii), 337-L(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner challenged the lower court's decision, which had granted bail based on the plea of alibi for one respondent and the lack of specific injury attribution for the other. Upon review, the High Court observed that the petitioner failed to provide evidence to refute the medical documentation supporting the alibi of the first respondent. Regarding the second respondent, the Court noted that he was not accused of causing any injury and was of advanced age, making his involvement potentially circumstantial. The Court held that the Additional Sessions Judge had exercised judicial discretion correctly in granting bail. Consequently, the High Court found no sufficient grounds to interfere with the impugned order or to cancel the bail, and the petition was dismissed.
- Can bail be cancelled when the petitioner fails to refute the medical evidence supporting an accused's plea of alibi?
- Is the absence of a specific injury attribution a valid ground for maintaining a bail order?
- Does the advanced age of an accused constitute a relevant factor in the exercise of judicial discretion regarding bail?
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAMUZ-ZAMAN, J.---Seeks cancellation of bail of respondents Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Arfan allowed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gojra vide order dated 16-11- 2005 in case F.I.R. No.486 of 2005 dated 29-10-2005 for the offence under sections 337-F(v) F-1, A2, L2 and 148/149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Gojra District T.T. Singh.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the data available on the record, I have observed that Muhammad Arfan was admitted to bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge on the plea of alibi. The impugned order reveals that during the period from 25-10- 2005 to 29-10-2005 Muhammad Arfan respondent remained admitted to hospital in connection with Renal Colic disease, to this extent learned counsel is not in a position to place on the record any certificate from the competent officer/Doctor to say that respondent Muhammad Arfan never remained admitted in the Mayo Hospital for the aforesaid period. As far as Muhammad Ramzan respondent is concerned admittedly he had not caused any injury to any of the prosecution witness, the allegation against him is that at the relevant time he was armed with Carbine and had made firing. According to the record he is a man of advanced age and possibility of his involvement because of his relation with other co-accused could not be ruled out.
' In the said circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly exercised the discretionary relief in favour of respondents. No ground for cancellation of bail is made out.
Dismissed.