UMAR HAYAT vs THE STATE and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court, which cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioner, Umar Hayat, in a criminal case. The petitioner was accused of firing shots at the complainant, resulting in an injury falling under Section 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued that the offence was not punishable by a term falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that the challan was not submitted within the statutory period. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court, in cancelling the bail, failed to determine whether the trial court's initial order granting bail was arbitrary, capricious, or fanciful. Finding that the trial court had exercised its discretion soundly, the Supreme Court held that the cancellation of bail by the High Court was unjustified. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, the impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was granted bail subject to furnishing surety bonds.
- Does an offence punishable by five years fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the legal standard for a High Court to cancel bail previously granted by a trial court?
- Is the failure to submit a challan within the prescribed period a valid ground for the grant of bail?
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' This petition is directed against order dated 30-4-2008, passed by learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan whereby, Criminal Miscellaneous No,24/CB of 2008 filed by complainant was allowed and bail granted to petitioner Umar Hayat was cancelled.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioner is that he fired 4-5 shots from his pistol on complainant, out of them, one fire hit on the left knee A of the complainant. The said injury comes within the ambit of section 337-F(v), P.P.C.
3. It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that said offence is punishable for five years and does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., as such, bail was rightly granted to petitioner by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mian Channu, advancing cogent and sound reasons. According to him, petitioner was arrested on 15-11-2007, but till 30-1-2008 challan was not submitted as such his detention in custody was illegal.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab supported the impugned order and admitted that challan was not put up within prescribed period before the competent Court of law.
5. We have considered the contentions raised at Bar and after having gone through the orders passed by the Courts below are of the opinion that petitioner was rightly granted bail by the learned trial Court. The learned High Court while cancelling the bail has failed to observe whether bail granting order was arbitrary, capricious or fanciful.
6. In view of the above, petition is converted into appeal and is allowed. The impugned order of the learned High Court is set aside. Appellant, namely, Umar Hayat is granted bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 10 cases
- ASAD KHALIL Versus State 2026 SCMR 914
- Yousuf son of Abdul Khaliq Mazari vs The State 2025 SHC LAR 1971
- Aziz-ur-Rehman Versus State 2026 MLD 61
- Muhammad Idrees vs Sardar Muhammad Asif, AAG 2021 MLD 877, 2020 PHC 300
- AZMAT KHAN alias JALIL Versus State 2018 YLRN 205
- ABDULLAH Versus State 2017 YLRN 216
- BARKAT Versus State 2017 YLRN 46
- HABIBULLAH SHAR vs The STATE 2014 MLD 1454
- MANJAWAR SHAH vs THE STATE 2011 MLD 440
- MUHAMMAD RAZA ELAHI Versus State 2017 YLRN 203