SAID MEER vs IBADAT HUSSAIN AND Another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 3-3-1980, whereby bail was granted to the respondent accused of murder. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting post-arrest bail in a case involving cross-injuries where the respondent was attributed the fatal blow, and whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion. The Supreme Court held that the petition has no force and dismissed it, declining to interfere with the High Court's order as all relevant facts and considerations, including the number and nature of injuries on both sides and the background of the occurrence, were duly noted by the High Court. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the discretionary exercise of bail by the High Court when all relevant facts and cross-injuries have been properly considered.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's discretion in granting post-arrest bail where cross-injuries are involved?
- Is bail to be refused solely on the ground that the accused is attributed the fatal blow in a case of mutual injuries?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal is sought from an order dated 3-3-1980 of the Lahore High Court, whereby bail was allowed to the respondent in a case which is stated to be of murder.
2. In an occurrence which took place on 30-10-1978 both the parties suffered numerous injuries. The learned Sessions Judge while granting bail to the co-accused of the respondent refused the same concession to him on the ground that he was attributed the vital role of causing fatal blow to Waqar Ahmad, the son of the petitioner who died about two months subsequently on account of wounds thus suffered by him. A learned Single Judge in the High Court noted the number and nature of the injuries on both the sides and keeping in view the background allowed bail to the respondent also.
3. Learned counsel has highlighted the facts that the respondents had given the fatal blow to the deceased and further that the injuries suffered by the accused party in this case had been sufficiently explained by the petitioner when lodging the F. I. R. He has also contended that it was not a case of further enquiry and that even if it was, respondent should not have been allowed the concession of bail. After hearing the learned counsel we do not find it a fit case to interfere with the exercise of the discretion by the High Court as all relevant facts and considerations were noted.
4. This petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.