ABDUS SATTAR AND Others vs The STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed in limine a bail petition filed on behalf of three accused persons facing charges under sections 302, 307, and 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the petition concerning two of the accused, Abdus Sattar and Ghulam Yaseen, but issued notice regarding the third accused, Suleman, whose attributed role pertained to section 325. The core legal question concerned whether Suleman was entitled to the concession of bail based on the rule of consistency and the specific role attributed to him. The Court held that on the stated facts and circumstances, particularly noting that Suleman's role was allegedly similar to that of a co-accused who had already been released on bail, the petitioner deserved the concession of bail. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and directed the release of the petitioner subject to furnishing appropriate bail bonds and sureties.
- Whether an accused whose role is similar to that of a co-accused already released on bail is entitled to the concession of bail?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail be converted into an appeal and allowed by the Supreme Court?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal having been sought from order dated 15-8-1981 of the Lahore High Court (whereby a petition for bail filed on behalf of three accused persons in a case under section 302/ 307 and 325, P. P. C. Was dismissed in limine); this Court dismissed the petition regarding two accused persons namely, Abdus Sattar and Ghulam Yaseen and issued notice to the Advocate-General (Punjab) with regard to Suleman, accused only ; as the role attributed to him, it was argued, related to the offence under section 325, P. P. C.
2. Today after hearing both the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, we are of the view that on the stated facts and circumstances, the petitioner should have been allowed the concession of bail. It may also be mentioned that the part attributed to him is allegedly similar to that of Rafiq, his co-accused, who has also since been released on bail.
3. We convert this petition into an appeal and allow the same, Sideman, accused (petitioner) shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond and two sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000 each to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Bhakkar. 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.
Cited by 9 cases
- Muhammad Atif vs The State and another 2023 SCP 345, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 1, 2024 SCMR 1071
- Maqbool Ahmed and another vs The State 2022 YLR 798
- LUTUF ULLAH vs The STATE 2018 MLD 794
- FAROOQ SHAH vs THE STATE and 2 others 2008 P Cr. L J 1419
- ALI BAAD KHAN and anothers vs THE STATE 2006 YLR 256
- MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus THE STATE 2004 PCRLJ 713
- TALIB HUSSAIN Versus STATE 2001 YLR 1900
- MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus THE STATE 2000 YLR 944
- MUMTAZ And 13 Others vs THE STATE 1992 P Cr. L J 2325