AMJAD AND Another vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail by the High Court to two petitioners, Amjad and Mahmood, who were charged alongside seven others under Sections 302 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. During the investigation, the prosecution found the case against seven of the co-accused to be false, leading to their release on bail, while the petitioners remained challaned. The petitioners argued that because the initial version of the First Information Report (F.I.R.) was proven false regarding the majority of the accused, it lacked sanctity. Furthermore, they contended that only a single injury on the leg of the deceased was attributed to each of them. The Supreme Court, without delving into the merits of the case, held that in the specific circumstances presented, the petitioners were entitled to bail. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail to the petitioners subject to the provision of sureties to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalnagar.
- Does the falsity of a First Information Report regarding the majority of accused persons entitle the remaining accused to the grant of bail?
- Can the Supreme Court grant bail to accused persons when the lower courts have refused it based on the specific circumstances of the case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-Amjad a student of Ist Year and Mahmood, who has recently appeared in the Intermediate Examination are accused alongwith 7 others for offence under sections 302/149, P.
P. C. On investigation it was found that the case against the 7 accused was false and they were, therefore, allowed bail but the petitioners alongwith two others namely, Teraiz and Fazal Khawaja have been challaned. The petitioners applied for bail to the Sessions Judge but his application was dismissed. They then approached the High Court but the High Court refused bail.
Hence this petition for leave to Appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no sanctity can be attached to the version given in the F. I. R. In view of the fact that it has been found to be false with regard to the majority of the accused. He submitted further that the petitioners have only been attributed one injury each on the leg of the deceased.
3. We issued a notice to the State and to have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We do not propose to discuss the merits of the case but feel that in the circumstances of this case the two petitioners are entitled to grant of bail. We, therefore, convert the petition into appeal and allow the same.
The petitioners are granted bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 each, with two sureties each, in the alike amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalnagar.
Cited by 4 cases
- HAQ NAWAZ Versus STATE 2001 YLR 634
- AMANULLAH Versus STATE 1997 MLD 1470
- MUKHTAR AHMAD and another vs THE STATE 1995 P Cr. L J 1643
- NADEEM AHMAD vs THE STATE 1986 P Cr. L J 629