GHULAM MOHI-UD-DIN SHAH vs Hafiz MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which granted pre-arrest bail to the respondent in a criminal case involving allegations of derogatory remarks under sections 295-A and 298-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner challenged the bail grant, arguing that there were reasonable grounds to believe the respondent committed the alleged offences. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted that the dispute arose from a conflict over the misappropriation of a shrine's saving box, with the respondent denying the allegations on oath. The Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in determining that the case required further inquiry and investigation into the respondent's guilt, as contemplated under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition, affirming that the High Court's discretion in granting pre-arrest bail was justified and did not warrant interference. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
- Is the High Court's discretion in granting pre-arrest bail subject to interference when the case requires further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a dispute over the management of a shrine constitute a relevant factor in assessing the merits of a pre-arrest bail application?
- Section 295-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 298-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The respondent Hafiz Muhammad Ramzan Sialvli filed Criminal Miscellaneous No,6182/B of 2006 for grant of pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,136, dated 20-7-2006 for offences under sections 295-A and 298-A, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Ahmadpur Sial, District Jhang. A learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court, vide impugned order, dated' 26-9- 2006 allowed the same and confirmed the bail before arrest.
2. The learned counsel argued that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent had committed offence and he had uttered derogatory remarks against the Caliphs and the Holy "Prophet (P.B.U.H.).
3. We have heard the learned counsel at length and have also perused the available record. The High Court found that the respondent was an employee of the Muslim Auqaf and was posted as a caretaker of the shrine of Hazarat Peer Abdul Rehman. There was some dispute between the petitioner/complainant and the accused regarding the misappropriation of saving box of shrine as the petitioner claimed to be Gaddinashin of the Dargah. The respondent stated on oath before the High Court that he had not uttered any such words attributed to him in the F.I.R. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was justified in taking the view that the case against the respondent failed for further inquiry and investigation into his guilt within the purview of section 497, Cr.P.C. The discretion exercised by the High Court does not warrant any interference by this Court.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. .