ABDUL SHAKOOR vs THE STATE And 6 Other
This criminal petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court granting bail to respondents 2 to 7 in a murder case. The petitioner alleged that the respondents formed an unlawful assembly and committed the murder of Muhammad Yousaf, with specific injuries attributed to each respondent. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in exercising its discretion to grant bail, particularly considering the age and infirmity of some respondents and the circumstances of the incident. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision to grant bail was justified. Regarding the elderly respondents, the court affirmed that their medical condition, supported by the Medical Superintendent, warranted release. Regarding the other respondents, the court noted that the High Court correctly considered factors such as the belated FIR, the existence of a compromise, and the fact that the respondents themselves sustained injuries, suggesting the case did not clearly fall under the prohibition against bail for offences punishable by death or life imprisonment. The petition was dismissed.
- Does the existence of injuries on the accused party provide valid grounds for a court to exercise discretion in granting bail in a murder case?
- Is a medical report confirming senile cataract and advanced age sufficient grounds to grant bail to an accused charged with a non-bailable offence?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in granting bail if the order is based on relevant considerations like a belated FIR and cross-injuries?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J: This is a Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous 14-B of 1975, dated 16-3- 1976. By this order the learned Single Judge released the respondents 2 to 7 on bail.
2. It is alleged by the petitioner that on 2-6-1974 at about 11 a.m. Zafar Alit cousin of the petitioner, was passing in front of the shop of Muhammad Yousaf accused, which is situated on the thoroughfare.
3. Due to an old enmity, Muhammad Yousaf caught hold of Zafar Ali, beat him and forcibly confined him in the shop. The petitioner, along with his uncle, Muhammad Yousaf deceased, Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Nadim and Muhammad Sharif went there immediately to rescue Zafar Ali. On seeing the petitioner, respondents 2 to 7 formed an unlawful assembly for committing the murder of Muhammad Yousaf, son of Mubarik Ali and attacked the petitioner's panty. It is further alleged that respondents 2 and 3 were carrying Kulharies while the others had dangs. Muhammad Yousaf respondent gave a Kulhari blow on the head of the deceased, Safdar respondent Inflicted a Yulhari blow on the left arm of the deceased, and the other respondents inflicted dang blows to the deceased, as well as to Nadim and Zafar Ali. The injured persons were removed to the Civil Hospital, Lyallpur, where Muhammad Yousaf expired on 5-2-1976 as a result of injuries received by him. The petitioner thereupon lodged an F. I. R. Under section 302/342/148/149, P. P. C. As a result of this respondents 2 to 7 were arrested and subsequently challaned after the investigation.
4. The respondents filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3190-B/1974 which was dismissed in limine regarding respondents 4 to 7 but was admitted with regard to respondents 2 and 3 on account of their old age. It was, however, later on dismissed on 29-10-1974 as they were not considered as infirm or weak. Respondents 2 to 7 again moved an application for bail namely, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 14-B/1976 and were granted bail. It is against this order that the petitioner has come up for special leave to appeal to this Court.
5. Ch. Nazir Ahmad Cheema the learned counsel for the petitioner ha contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in granting bail to respondents 2 and 3 on the ground that they were 70 or 80 years, and they were suffering from senile cataract. It was, however, admitted by the learned counsel that the Medical Superintendent has supported this fact. In our opinion, in these circumstances, these respondents have been rightly released on bail.
6. So far as other respondents are concerned, the learned Single Judge has observed that the occurrence took place at night and that the parties had compromise and a belated F. I. R. Was lodged after the death of Muhammad Yousaf deceased. 1t is contended that the learned Single Judge did not consider that respondents 2 to 7 are named in the F. I. R. Specific injuries have been attributed to all of them. It, however, appears to us that injuries were caused to the respondents also, and in these circumstances the learned Judge had good ground to take the view that the respondents do not appear to be guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. We think that the learned Single Judge has exercised the discretion vested in him, properly and there is no ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed.
7. Petitiondismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- Maulvi QURBAN ALI and another vs THE STATE 1995 P Cr. L J 1142