GUL AKBAR vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Gul Akbar against the State, challenging an order concerning bail before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question involves the circumstances under which the Supreme Court should intervene in bail matters already pending before trial courts where challans have been submitted and trials have commenced. The Court held that it is not the practice of the Supreme Court to unduly intervene in bail matters, which should ordinarily be left to the discretion of the inquiring courts exercising sound judicial principles, and declined to grant leave to appeal where the High Court has properly exercised its jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will generally withhold interference in bail petitions when the trial has commenced and prosecution evidence is underway, leaving the accused to seek relief before the trial court.
- Will the Supreme Court unduly intervene in bail matters left to the discretion of courts inquiring into the guilt of accused persons?
- Can leave to appeal be granted where the High Court has properly exercised its jurisdiction in appreciating and assessing evidence in a bail matter?
- What is the appropriate course of action for a petitioner when a challan has been submitted and the trial has commenced?
JAVED IQBAL, J.--- Heard Mr. Zulfiqar. Abbas Naqvi, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner, Ch. Munir Sadiq, learned Deputy. Prosecutor-General for State, scanned the entire evidence with their eminent assistance and perused the order impugned carefully. It is to be noted that challan of the case has already been submitted, trial commenced and case is fixed for recording of prosecution evidence for 26-7-2007. The petitioner may move an application for bail before the learned trial Court. We are deliberately withholding our comments on merits of the case to avoid the possibility of causing prejudice against any party. By now it is well-settled that "it is not the practice of the Supreme Court to unduly intervene in bail matters, which should ordinarily be left to the discretion of the Courts inquiring into the guilt of the accused persons. The discretion has, of course, to be exercised on sound judicial principles. Leave to appeal is not granted by the Supreme Court where the grievance is that the High Court has, in the proper exercise of its jurisdiction, appreciated and assessed evidence or exercised discretion in a manner with which it is easily possible to disagree". Abdul Haq v. State 1979 SCM R 254, Ghulam Nabi v. State NLR 1978 Crl.
328, Sultan Khan v. Amir Khan PLD 1977 SC 642, Haq Nawaz v. State 1969 PCr.LJ 358, Haq Nawaz v.
State 1969 SCM R 174 and Allah Diwaya v. State PLD 1969 SC 98.
2. On the touchstone of the criterion as laid in the above referred to authorities the petition in hand has been examined and we are of the considered view that the order impugned does not call for any interference. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and leave refused.
Cited by 4 cases
- MUHAMMAD NASIR MUNEEF QURESHI vs The STATE and another 2019 YLR 1591
- KHALID MEHMOOD Versus State 2013 YLR 2538
- FAISAL MAHMOOD vs The STATE and another 2019 YLR 1454
- BARKAT ALI vs The STATE and anothers 2013 P Cr. L J 668