GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE AND Another
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had cancelled the petitioner's bail. The petitioner had initially been granted bail by the Sessions Judge in a case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code. Subsequently, the High Court cancelled this bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, based on allegations that the petitioner had misused the concession of bail by threatening the complainant and witnesses, which were supported by a police report and an affidavit. The core legal question was whether the High Court's cancellation of bail was justified when the accused failed to controvert the allegations of misuse through a counter-affidavit. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was correct, as the petitioner consistently failed to file any affidavit denying the serious allegations of witness intimidation. The key principle laid down is that where allegations of misuse of bail are supported by evidence, such as an affidavit, the failure of the accused to file a counter-affidavit to controvert those specific allegations justifies the cancellation of bail.
- Does the failure of an accused to file a counter-affidavit controverting allegations of bail misuse justify the cancellation of bail?
- Is the cancellation of bail by the High Court appropriate when allegations of threatening witnesses are supported by an affidavit and remain uncontradicted by the accused?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 326, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-On the 15-7-1976, the Sessions Judge, Kasur, allowed bail to the petitioner herein in a case registered against him under section 307/326, P. P. C. At the instance of respondent No. 2. But on the 2tth of October, 1976, on an application made by the respondent under section 497(5), Cr. P. C. The learned Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court cancelled the bail on the main ground that the petitioner has misused the concession of bail and was threatening the complainant and the other witnesses after his release on bail. The learned Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court while observing that in support of his contention the respondent has produced a report lodged to this effect with the police, cancelled his bail in the absence of any affidavit filed by the accused controverting the allegations.
2. The petitioner then applied to the High Court for grant of bail afresh by recall of the earlier order dated 28th of October, 1976, passed by it. But on the 14th of March, 1977, the learned Chief Justice dismissed the application with the remarks that the accused has filed no counter-affidavit controverting the allegations made against him neither in reply to the earlier application nor in support of his application.
3. In these circumstances the petitioner has filed this petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 14th of March, 1977, passed by the High Court.
4. After hearing the learned counsel we are constrained to observe that neither in his reply to the application made by the respondent for the cancellation of the bail of the petitioner, nor in support of the subsequent application filed by the petitioner for bail in the High Court nor even before us in support of this petition for special leave to appeal, the accused has at any stage filed his affidavit controverting the allegations against him that he had misused the concession of bail allowed to him by the Sessions Judge and threatened the complainant and the eye-witnesses after his release on bail. In the circumstances the learned Chief Justice relied on the report made by the respondent in that connection. The reported case is Lal Khan v. Ali Khan and others (PLD 1976 Kar.
5. 1165), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable inasmuch as the petitioner- accused in the instant case had failed to file any counter-affidavit controverting the allegations made by the respondent in his application for the cancellation of the bail of the petitioner which were admittedly supported by an affidavit filed by him. The High Court rightly placed its reliance on the material before it and this is not a fit case for interference by us in these proceedings.
6. This petition for special leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- SAFDAR KHAN vs THE STATE and 4 others 1993 P Cr. L J 2413