BADSHA KHAN vs The STATE
This matter arises from a petition for bail filed by the petitioner, Badsha Khan, who had been acquitted of murder by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, but whose acquittal became the subject of an appeal filed by the State under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the High Court. Upon admitting the appeal, the High Court issued non-bailable warrants for the petitioner's arrest. The petitioner subsequently sought bail from the High Court, which was rejected both on the ground that the earlier arrest warrant order barred reconsideration and on the merits of the case. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in refusing bail pending the State's appeal against acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the refusal of bail was justified given the prompt reporting of the crime, the specific attribution of fatal knife blows to the petitioner in the First Information Report, and the presence of named eye-witnesses without apparent motive for false implication. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether an order issuing non-bailable warrants upon the admission of an appeal against acquittal bars a subsequent application for bail?
- Is bail to be granted during the pendency of an appeal against acquittal when the accused is implicated in the First Information Report with fatal blows supported by eye-witness testimony?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 417, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The petitioner was acquitted of the charge under section 302, P. P. C. By the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, against which the State filed an appeal under section 417, Cr. P. C., in the High Court. The learned Judges admitted the appeal and directed that non-bailable warrants shall issue for the arrest of the petitioner.
2. On being taken into custody the petitioner moved the High Court for bail on grounds which went to the merits of the appeal. Another Division Bench of which one of the Judges who bad admitted the appeal was a party rejected the prayer on the view that there was no ground for reviewing the earlier order and that on merits too it was not a fit case for grant of bail.
3. In canvassing the petition for bail, Mr. Khalid M. Ishaque contended that the view expressed by the High Court that the earlier order for issuing non-bailable warrants for the arrest of the petitioner was a bar to the maintainability of the application for bail was incorrect and drew our attention to the order of acquittal which in his opinion was well-founded. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel. The occurrence took place at 9-30 p.m. And the matter was reported to the Police at 9-45 p. m In the report the petitioner was accused of having given the fatal knife blows to the deceased. Out of the four eye-witnesses examined during the trial the names of three are mentioned in the F. I. R. None of these witnesses had any ostensible reason to falsely implicate the petitioner. In the light of these attending circumstances the order of acquittal was open to question and the High Court is right in refusing bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal. The other contention raised by the learned counsel is also without any substance as the learned Judges after observing that there was no ground fur reviewing the earlier order did proceed to decide the question of bail on merits.
4. The petition is dismissed.