MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs The STATE
This petition for special leave to appeal was filed against an order of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for bail pending his criminal appeal against conviction. The petitioner had been convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and Sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court had refused bail, noting that the arguments raised by the petitioner required an appreciation of evidence, which was premature at the bail stage, while simultaneously directing that the main appeal be heard on an expedited basis. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's discretionary exercise of jurisdiction in refusing bail. The Supreme Court held that since the High Court had exercised its discretion not to grant bail and had balanced the interests of justice by scheduling an early hearing for the main appeal, there was no justification for interference. The petition was consequently dismissed, affirming that the High Court's order maintained the balance of justice.
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretionary refusal of bail pending appeal when the main appeal has been expedited?
- Is it appropriate for a court to decline bail on the grounds that the arguments raised require an appreciation of evidence?
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-An appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 1308/80 filed by the petitioner against his conviction under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 11 of 1947 and sections 468 and 471, P. P. C. Is , pending in the High Court. In that appeal he applied for bail by means of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1/80 but without any success as the same was dismissed by the High Court on 7-12-1980. The order of the High Court is short one and reads as follows: - "The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to the appreciation of evidence which cannot be dealt with at this stage. This application is dismissed in limine.
Without prejudice to the merits of the case, I feel that the sentence imposed on the applicant is rather severe. The main appeal could be set down for hearing by the end of 1981."
2. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel. In our opinion since the High Court has in its discretionary jurisdiction not thought it fit to grant bail to the petitioner, we see no justification to interfere with that discretion particularly when the appeal of the petitioner has been directed to be heard if we can say so, out of turn-by the end of year 1981. The order seems to maintain the balance of justice and cannot be taken exception to.
4. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.