ABDUL BAQUI vs SHAISTA KHAN AND Another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the cancellation of bail by the Baluchistan High Court. The petitioner was arrested in connection with an occurrence in Quetta and was initially granted interim bail, which was subsequently recalled when it transpired he was charged under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code. After the submission of the challan, the Additional Sessions Judge granted him bail on the ground that the trial would take time. The complainant successfully moved the High Court for bail cancellation, noting that injuries were inflicted on vital parts of the complainant's body and that the petitioner was tentatively implicated under section 307. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court exercised its discretion arbitrarily or unreasonably. The Court held that the High Court properly cancelled the bail based on the material implicating the petitioner in a serious offense, and found no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the decision. The key principle laid down is that bail may be cancelled by a superior court when the accused is tentatively implicated in a serious crime involving injuries to vital parts of the body, and the lower court's grant of bail under such circumstances is unsustainable.
- Whether the High Court can cancel bail granted by a lower court when the accused is charged with an offense under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Does the cancellation of bail by the High Court under Section 307 amount to an arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of discretion?
- Can a trial court entertain a fresh application for bail after recording some evidence if circumstances permit?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
DORAB PATEL, J.-The petitioner was apprehended his arrest for an occurrence, which took place in Quetta on 11-8-1975, therefore he applied to the Sessions Court for bail before arrest, and an Additional Sessions Judge, Quetta, granted him interim bail on 6-10-1979. The case came up before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on 9-10-1979, but as it transpired that the petitioner was charged under section 307, P. P. C., the interim bail granted was not confirmed and he was handed over to custody. But, the Court further observed that the petitioner could apply for bail after the challan had been submitted. The challan was submitted promptly, and so the petitioner again applied for bail on 16-10-1979. Bail was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 20-10-1979 with the observation that "the challan of the case has been put up for trial. The trial of the case would take time for its conclusion". The complainant, therefore, filed an application in the Sessions Court for the cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner, but, as his application was dismissed, he challenged the order of the Sessions Court in the Baluchistan High Court. This application came up for bearing before the learned Chief Justice, who noted that the char egg was under section 307, P.
P. C. And that the "injuries were on vital parts of his body", therefore, the learned Chief Justice cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner by the Sessions Judge with further observation "there no bar for the trial Court to entertain application for bail, if any, after recording some evidence, if circumstances permit".
2. The petition for leave has been filed against this order and Mr. Bilal submitted that the Chief Justice had misread the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge and assumed that the Additional Sessions Judge had granted bail before arrest. This argument has reference to an observa--tion in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order, but there seem to be some clerical or typing error in the order and a perusal of the entire order leaves no doubt in our minds that bail was cancelled by the Chie. Judge because of the material which tentatively implicates the petitioner for an offence under section 307, P. P. C. It cannot, therefore, be contended that the Chief Justice exercised his discretion arbitrarily or unreasonably.
The petition is without merit and is dismissed.