ABDUL GHAFOOR vs The STATE
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court refusing bail to the petitioner, who had been convicted under Section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to six years of rigorous imprisonment by a Section 30 Magistrate. The core legal question was whether the High Court improperly exercised its discretion in denying bail to a convicted person pending appeal, particularly given the length of the sentence and the anticipated delay in the appeal hearing. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's discretion in granting or refusing bail to a convict is not to be interfered with unless it is exercised on principles unsupported by law. The Court emphasized that a convict does not have an inherent right to bail, and at the appellate stage, the court is not required to re-examine the prima facie case for conviction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the High Court's refusal to grant bail was deemed a proper exercise of judicial discretion.
- Does a convicted person have an inherent right to be released on bail pending the hearing of their appeal?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in refusing bail to a convict?
- Is the High Court required to consider the merits of a conviction when deciding on a bail application pending appeal?
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 30, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal is from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court refusing to grant bail to the petitioner, who has been convicted under section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six years as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 1,400, by a Section 30, Cr. P. C. Magistrate.
2. The petitioner's co-accused Abdus Sattar has been convicted and sentenced under section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment for one year.
3. The Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Circuit, admitted the appeal of the two convicts and while it granted bail to Abdus Sattar, it refused bail to the petitioner.
4. On behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that the High Court should not have refused bail to the petitioner merely because he was sentenced to a long term of imprisonment parti--cularly when the appeal was not likely to be heard for a long time. This contention has no force. Unless the petitioner succeeds in showing that the High Court, which has a discretion in the matter, has used its discretion on principles which cannot be supported in law, this Court will not interfere with the High Court's order. The petitioner has been convicted of a grave offence and is not entitled as of right to be released on bail. This is not the stage when the High Court was required to consider whether any prima facie case for conviction has been made out against the petitioner, for, he is already a convict. We do not think that the High Court has used its discretion improperly. It is needless to mention that we cannot consider the merit of the case when the appeal before the High Court is still pending hearing.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, however, the High Court may consider whether it is desirable to hear the appeal at the next circuit. The petition is dismissed.