IBRAHIM AND Another vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which had previously dismissed the petitioners' application for post-arrest bail in a murder case. The petitioners, Ibrahim and Pervez, were charged with the murder of Noor Elahi in furtherance of a common intention. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's refusal to grant bail was legally infirm or warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the refusal to grant bail in cases involving offences punishable with death or transportation for life is a matter of judicial discretion, subject to the limitation that bail is generally not to be allowed. The Court emphasized that in bail proceedings, courts are not required to probe into the merits of the case but should instead focus on the material placed before them. Finding no infirmity in the impugned order, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Is a court required to probe into the merits of a case when deciding a bail application for offences punishable with death or transportation?
- Does the refusal to grant bail in a murder case constitute a matter of judicial discretion for the trial court?
- What is the limitation on the discretion of a court to grant bail for offences punishable with death or transportation?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. SHAH NAWAZ KHAN, J.- Ibrahim son of. Din Muhammad and Pervez son of Pir Bakhsh, both Kashmiris by caste and residents of Tarnole, District Islamabad, are charged for causing the murder of Noor Elahi in furtherance of their common intention. Muhammad has also been charged along with them.
2. The request of Ibrabim and Pervez for bail was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Islamabad. Their prayer for bail also failed before the High Court, and the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, by his order dated 11-1-1982 dismissed their petition. They have now come to this Court with a prayer for special leave to appeal against the said judgment dated 11-1-1982 of the High Court.
3. Refusal to grant bail in a case like the present one is a matter of discre--tion of the trial Court which is trying the case. For offences punishable with death or transportation, the discretion is subject to the limitation that bail is not to be allowed to an accused person. The Courts are not required to probe into the merits of the case. They have only to look at the material placed before them.
4. We find no infirmity in the impugned order which may justify interference so far as the grant of bail to the petitioner is concerned. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. 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 3 cases
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus THE STATE 2001 PCRLJ 1420
- Mst. FATIMA vs ABDUL MAJID and 2 others 2004 YLR 400
- MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN Versus REHMAT ALI 1993 PLD 836