NASEEB KHAN vs HAKIM ALI and otherss
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the order of the High Court, which had suspended the sentence of the respondent, Hakim Ali, and granted him bail pending appeal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court exercised its discretion properly in granting bail, specifically regarding the medical evidence presented. The petitioner argued that a bruise on the left side of the deceased's face, noted as injury No. 1 in the post-mortem report, should be interpreted as an injury to the head, thereby contradicting the High Court's finding that the injury attributed to the respondent on the head did not exist. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that it could not interpret an injury to the face as an injury to the head contrary to the medical opinion provided by the doctor. Finding no illegality in the discretion exercised by the High Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that appellate courts will not interfere with the discretionary grant of bail unless a clear illegality or misappreciation of facts is demonstrated.
- Can an appellate court re-interpret medical findings regarding the location of an injury to contradict the findings of the lower court?
- Is the suspension of a sentence and grant of bail by a High Court subject to interference if no illegality in the exercise of discretion is shown?
ORDER
' The main reason which had weighed with the learned High Court in suspending the sentence awarded to Hakim Ali respondent was that the injury attributed to him on the head of the deceased was not found to exist. The learned Advocate Supreme Court tried to persuade us to hold that a bruise which was found on the left side of the face of the deceased, which is described as injury No,1 in the post-mortem report, should be declared to be an injury on the head of the deceased.
2. We are afraid that it is not possible for us to give any such interpretation to a part of the body, which according to the doctor is the face and not the head. We have not been able to find any illegality in the discretion exercised by the learned High Court in releasing the respondent on bail.
This petition is therefore, dismissed. .