MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others vs THE STATE
This petition arises out of a judgment passed by the Lahore High Court whereby the concession of pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners by the Additional Sessions Judge was recalled. The core legal question concerns the propriety of declining pre-arrest bail where the accused allegedly received money for the purchase of paddy crop belonging to another person and were found guilty by the police. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court's judgment recalling the bail was just and proper, declining to delve into the determination of the crime at this preliminary stage to avoid prejudice. The Court emphasized that considerations for pre-arrest and post-arrest bail differ and affirmed that no interference was warranted as no question of public importance was involved, ultimately dismissing the petition and refusing leave to appeal.
- Whether considerations for the grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court order recalling pre-arrest bail when no question of public importance is involved?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition has been filed against the judgment, dated 11th July, 2003 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby concession of bail before arrest has been declined to the petitioners for the following reasons:-- "I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gene through the application which the petitioner had given to the different Investigating Officers as same has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents. The crux of the matter is that Rs,1,44,000 was given to the respondents by the petitioner for the purchase of paddy crop but on the other hand, the paddy crop which was shown that belonged to other person. One should keep in mind, that considerations for the grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different. Respondents were found guilty by the police.
In this view of the matter, this petition is accepted and order granting bail to the respondents dated 28-4-2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozewala is hereby recalled."
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case at the best petitioners are involved for the offence under section 420, P.P.C., if at all version of the complaint/prosecution is accepted.
3. We are afraid such questions relating to determination of crime are not to be answered at this stage, lest it will cause prejudice to any of the party. However, it is noteworthy that during the hearing of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,182-L of 2003 in Chamber on 6-8-2003, petitioners through counsel made a statement that if Malik Farmaish Ali, Advocate/Nazim, Union Council No,48 appears before this Court and makes statement about the dispute between the parties, petitioners would be bound by it. It is informed that said Malik Farmaish Ali had declined to appear before the Court to make a statement about the dispute between the parties. Besides it after having gone through the material available on record we are inclined to hold that judgment of the High Court is just and proper, therefore, no interference is called for as no question of public importance is involved in this case.
' Thus, for the foregoing reasons petition is dismissed and leave declined.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ vs THE STATE and anothers 2012 YLR 1148