Haji ALLAH DITTA vs UMAR DIN ETC.
This matter originated as a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the complainant, Haji Allah Ditta, seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents, Umar Din, Bashir, and Mansha, by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. The respondents were accused in a double-murder case registered under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in granting bail when the respondents were named in the First Information Report with specific allegations. The Supreme Court reviewed the investigation reports, noting that the investigating officers, including the Inspector and D.S.P. of the Crimes Branch, had found the respondents innocent and placed them in column (2) of the challan. Furthermore, medical evidence contradicted the specific allegations of dragging and brickbatting. The Court held that the High Court correctly determined the case required further inquiry. Consequently, the petition for bail cancellation was dismissed, affirming that the grant of bail was justified given the circumstances and lack of legal error.
- Whether bail can be granted when the investigating officer finds the accused innocent and places them in column (2) of the challan?
- Does the existence of contradictions between the First Information Report allegations and medical evidence justify a finding of 'further inquiry' for bail purposes?
- Is the grant of bail by a High Court sustainable when it is based on a finding that the case requires further inquiry?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-Umar Din, Bashir and Mansha (respondents herein) are involved alongwith 12 others in a case reported in an F. I. R. Registered at P. S. Daska under section 302/148/149, P. P. C. For ' the double-murder of Maula Dad and Fazal Dad. The respondents filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No, 4359/B of 1978 for being released on bail which was accepted by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court who by means of his order dated 6-12-78 released them on bail as the case, according to the learned Judge, was such which needed further enquiry,
2. The complainant Haji Allah Ditta has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the case and has prayed for the cancellation of the bail of the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the names of the respondents were contained in the F.
1. R. And specific parts had also been attributed to them. In these circumstances, he submitted, the respondents should not have been released on bail. We have gone through the F. I. R., the post- mortem reports of the deceased and have heard the learned counsel at length. It may be mentioned that the learned Single Judge of the High Court had sent for the investigating Officer namely the .Inspector, Crimes Branch who had appeared along with the record and submitted that according to the result of the investigation, the respondents were innocent.We have taken note of this aspect of the case as well
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that in the challan submitted to Court the respondents have been shown in column (2) thereof He also disclosed that investigation by various officers was conducted in this case and the Inspector and D. S. P. Crimes Branch in their respective reports had stated that 11 out of 15 accused were falsely involved., Accord-to the F. I. R.
Umar Din and Mansha respondents were empty-handed. It is stated that they dragged the deceased and also gave them belows with brickbats. The post-mortem reports, however, contained no signs of dragging or injuries by brickbatting. Bashir respondent was alleged to be armed with a khanjar and some part is attributed to him. However, he pleaded alibi and four Advocates of Sialkot have sworn affidavits in his favour. If the facts which have been mentioned above, are kept in view then the ending of the learned Single Judge that the case vis-a-vis the respondents is such which needs further enquiry, cannot be taken exception to as there are sufficient reasons and circumstances to justify the same. The order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from violation of any principle of law applicable in criminal cases of this type in the matter of grant of bail, not affecting the trial.
5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed, .
Cited by 3 cases
- Shafayat Ullah and 4 others vs Shah Khalid and another 2021 YLR 1429
- ALI NAWAZ vs THE STATE 2002 P Cr. L J 1885
- LIAQAT ALI Versus THE STATE 1994 PLD 172