SHAUKAT MANZOOR vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had refused to grant bail to the petitioner in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, who was accused of firing the fatal shot, sought bail on the grounds that other co-accused had been granted bail, that the prosecution case was allegedly belied by the investigation, and that there were inconsistencies between the First Information Report and the post-mortem report regarding the injuries sustained. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's refusal to grant bail constituted an arbitrary or perverse exercise of judicial discretion. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court had properly considered the relevant factors and that the attribution of the fatal shot to the petitioner justified the denial of bail at this stage. The Court affirmed that it would not interfere with the High Court's discretion when it has been exercised reasonably and not perversely.
- Does the grant of bail to co-accused automatically entitle another accused to bail?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in bail matters?
- Is it appropriate for the Court to conduct a detailed assessment of evidence at the bail stage when a fatal shot is attributed to the accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J: This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court refusing, to admit the petitioner to bail in a case under sections 302, 307, 148 and 149, P.
2. P. C., registered at Police Station, Sadar, Wazirabad, dated 19-10-1974. According to the First Informa--tion Report the petitioner is stated to be armed with a rifle and the fatal shot has been attributed to him.
3. The petitioner submits that of the several persons accused in the F. I. R. Manzoor Hussain, Sardara, Allah Ditta and Allah Rakha had been allowed bail. Manzoor Hussain was placed in Column No. 2 of challan by the Police after he led evidence to prove his alibi before the Investigating Officer. The prosecution case is, therefore, belied and so far as the petitioner is concerned, it is a case of further inquiry, entitling him to the grant of bail. It is also submitted that the injuries mentioned in the post- mortem report are not consistent with the description of injuries given in the F. I. R. Besides according to the F. I. R., two persons are said to be armed with rifles, whereas only one rifle was recovered. It is finally submitted that the petitioner has been in the judicial lock-up and his trial is not expected to start very soon.
4. We have considered these submissions, but are not inclined to interfere. The learned Judge in the High Court, after elaborate discussion of all the relevant factors, reached the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to bail and it cannot be said that in doing so he exercised his discretion arbitrarily or perversely. The fatal shot has been attributed to the ' petitioner and it would be premature to go into the aspects which the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us.
5. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.
6. Petition .Dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- NAZAR ALI vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 2491