MUHAMMAD YOUNUS vs ISMAIL AND Another
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order passed by the Sind High Court releasing respondent No. 2 on bail. The High Court granted bail on the ground that the case required further inquiry as to whether the offence fell under Exception 1 of Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 or Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and also concerning the exact age of the respondent based on conflicting medical evidence and a birth certificate. The core legal question was whether the discretion exercised by the High Court in granting post-arrest bail on these grounds was proper. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the grounds cited by the High Court indeed presented a case of further inquiry under the law, and the discretion to grant bail was properly exercised. The Supreme Court established the principle that where the applicability of a penal provision or the determination of age requires further inquiry, the grant of bail by the High Court constitutes a proper exercise of discretion which will not be interfered with. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
- Whether the determination of whether an offence falls under Exception 1 of Section 300 or Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 constitutes a ground for further inquiry warranting bail?
- Whether conflicting evidence regarding the age of an accused person justifies the grant of post-arrest bail for further inquiry?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion exercised by a High Court in granting bail?
- Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. NAM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 17-6-1981 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court at Karachi releasing Muhammad Ismail, respondent No. 2 herein, on bail on the ground that the case was one of further injury, namely, requiring determination whether the offence committed by the said respon--dent fell under Exception 1 of section 300, P. P. C., or it fell under sec--tion 302, P. P. C., as all edged by the prosecution. A further matter, which required further inquiry, was whether the said respondent was 15 years of age as opined in the medical evidence or about 16 years and 10 months of age, as recorded in the birth certificate.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate-General Sind (who has supported the order of the learned Judge of the High Court), we feel that the grounds given by the learned Single Judge in his impugned order while granting bail indicate that the case, indeed, on the facts herein, was one of further inquiry and, there--fore, the discretion exercised, by him, in allowing bail in this case, has been properly exercised. No ground, therefore, is made out for interfering with the said order.
3. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.