SOHAIL AHMED BABAR vs THE STATE and another
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court which recalled the bail previously granted to the petitioner in a criminal case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner had initially been admitted to bail on the grounds that the trial had not commenced and the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. However, the High Court subsequently recalled this order upon finding the petitioner's conduct to be unsatisfactory. The Supreme Court examined the petition and noted that the charge had since been framed against the petitioner and the trial was set to commence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's exercise of discretion in recalling the bail did not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal, affirming that bail can be recalled where the conduct of the accused warrants such intervention.
- Whether the High Court has the authority to recall a bail order if the conduct of the accused is found to be unsatisfactory?
- Does the commencement of trial proceedings impact the court's discretion in maintaining or recalling a bail order?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the exercise of discretion by a High Court in bail matters if no illegality or arbitrariness is demonstrated?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, ACTG. C.J.--- Petitioner is aggrieved by Lahore High Court order, dated 8-3- 2007 whereby bail granted to the petitioner vide order, dated 18-10-2006 in F.I.R. No,163, dated 21-5- 2006 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Faisalabad under section 489-F, P.P.C. Was recalled.
2. Petitioner was admitted to bail by Lahore High Court vide order, dated 18-10-2006 in the sum of Rs,80,000 on the consideration that trial Court had not commenced the proceeding and that the alleged offence was not covered by prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. However, at the instance of respondent/complainant Muhammad Afzal, after notice to the petitioner, learned Judge in Chambers recalled the bail granting order, as the conduct of the petitioner was found to be not above board.
3. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Shamsher Iqbal, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and Chaudhry Munir Sadiq, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab and gone through the record. Presently charge has been framed against the petitioner and the case has been set down for recording evidence, which is likely to be commenced do not feel inclined to interfere with the exercise of discretion, as the same does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness. Petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 2 cases
- AMIN IQBAL vs The STATE 2013 YLR 2428
- MUHAMMAD ATIF vs THE STATE 2011 MLD 621