Ajam Shah vs Bashir Ahmed, etc
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the High Court in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 324, 109 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court's discretion in granting bail to an accused declared innocent during investigation and involved in a cross-version/multiple-complaint scenario was arbitrary or contrary to law, warranting interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the exercise of discretion by the High Court was neither arbitrary nor against the declared law, as the factual premises forming the basis of the impugned bail order were not seriously controverted. Consequently, the court laid down the principle that appellate interference with a High Court's grant of post-arrest bail is unwarranted where the discretion has been exercised judiciously upon uncontroverted factual grounds such as conflicting versions and innocence found during investigation. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
- Whether post-arrest bail granted by the High Court should be cancelled when the accused was declared innocent during police investigation?
- Does the existence of multiple private complaints and conflicting versions regarding the same occurrence justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court in granting bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANL J. -- Respondent Bashir Ahmed was allowed post-arrest bail by the learned High Court in case F.I.R. j\lo. 454/10, dated 22.9.2010 under Sections 302, 324, 109 & 34, P.P.C, at Police Station Noor Shah, District Sahiwal, inter alia on the ground that the respondent and ' his co-accused were declared innocent during investigation; that qua the same occurrence, the co- accused party have also filed a private complaint and that it is a case of three versions inasmuch as even the mother of the Rani Bibi (deceased) has filed a private complaint with regard to the same occurrence, in which the respondent is not accused.
2. Petitioner's learned counsel seeks cancellation on the ground that respondent was specifically named in the F.I.R., which was lodged promptly and was no reason why be should have been falsely implicated in the case; that the alleged offence falls in the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C, and he should not be allowed bail. Learned Additional Prosecutor-General does not defend the impugned judgment.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we note that the factual premise which found favour by the High Court has not been seriously controverted by petitioner's learned counsel.
4. In these circumstances, the exercise of discretion by the learned High Court being not arbitrary or against the law declared does not warrant interference. We do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. Leave refused.