Pakistan Case LawAMIR KHAN Versus The STATE
This petition for special leave to appeal challenges a High Court order recalling an interim bail previously granted to the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given conflicting police investigation reports and the petitioner's suppression of a prior failed anticipatory bail application. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to bail. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had willfully suppressed the fact that his earlier application for anticipatory bail had been dismissed on merits, thereby obtaining interim bail through misrepresentation. The Court emphasized the principle that a party seeking judicial assistance must approach the court with clean hands. Furthermore, the Court found that the material available, indicating the petitioner was present at the scene armed with a firearm and raised a lalkara, did not warrant bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regardless of the conflicting opinions among investigating officers regarding the necessity of a challan.
- Does the suppression of a previously dismissed bail application by an accused justify the cancellation of interim bail subsequently granted?
- Is an accused entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 merely because one of several investigating officers opined against challaning them?
- Can an accused who was present at the scene of a crime armed with a firearm and raised a lalkara claim entitlement to bail?
M. R. KHAN, J.-This petition for special leave is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, by which he recalled his earlier order granting interim bail to the petitioner.
One Abdul Karim Khan lodged an F. I. R. At Police Station, Sadar Mianwali, on the 8th January 1970, at 6-30 p.m., alleging that five accused persons armed with fire-arms came to the shop of Habibullah. Of them, Sardar Khan fired with a -12 bore gun at Abdul Rauf (deceased) who was then present in that shop. It was further alleged that the remaining four accused including the present petitioner Amir Khan raised lalkara and also fired.
The petitioner applied to the High Court for anticipatory bail, but the prayer was refused by a learned Single Judge. The relevant portion of this order refusing anticipatory bail runs thus .-
"---------.I have gone through the first information report with the help of the learned counsel and I find, that the petitioner at the time of the occurrence was armed with a rifle and his companions with guns and rifles. In the circumstances, whether he fired at the deceased or his companions fired at him, make no difference. The case relied upon by the learned counsel would not be applicable. The petitioner did not merely raised lalkara but was at the same time armed with a rifle. In the circumstances, I do not consider, that it is a fit case for anticipatory bail. The petition is dismissed."
After his arrest, the petitioner unsuccessfully moved the learned Magistrate and the Sessions Judge for bail. He then made another application in the High Court for bail. In this application, he suppressed the fact that his previous application for anticipatory bail, had been dismissed on merits. However, this fresh application was dealt with by a learned Single Judge other than the Judge who had dismissed the application for anticipatory bail, and this time interim bail was granted to the petitioner. At the final hearing of the bail application, it came to light that the petitioner had earlier made an application for anticipatory bail, but it was dismissed. In this circumstance, the learned Single Judge recalled the order granting interim bail to the petitioner and ordered that he should be arrested and kept in custody.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's case is covered by subsection (2) of section 497, of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, as such, he should be released on bail. It appears that the investigation in this case was held by as many as three Police Officers, namely, Mian Ghulam Muhammad, S. H. O., Police Station, Sadar Mianwali, Qazi Safdar Hussain, District Inspector, Mianwali and Mr. Aleemuddin, Inspector, Crimes Branch. The last mentioned officer alone was of the opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be challaned. But the prosecuting Inspector of the Crimes Branch held the contrary view and wanted the petitioner to be charge- sheeted and tried. On these facts, it seems that the petitioner's case is not necessarily covered by subsection (2) of section 497, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Apart from this, the petitioner wilfully suppressed the fact that his earlier bail application had been rejected and a thereby succeeded in getting interim bail. No one can claim Court's assistance unless he comes before the Court with clean hands.
The material that is available for the time being shows that the petitioner was one of the accused persons, armed with fire arms and was present at the scene and raised lalkara. On these facts also, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.
The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 4 cases
- LIAQAT ALI Versus THE STATE 1994 PLD 172
- MIR ZAMAN Versus State 2005 PCRLJ 1371
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs MUNIR AND 4 Other 1981 SCMR 504
- KHALID RASHID AND Another vs THE STATE 1972 PLD Lahore 729
Judges on this bench
- M. R. Khan294 judgments
- Wahiduddin Ahmad281 judgments