MEHMOOD AKHTAR, ETC. vs The STATE
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court refusing them post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 307, 325, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and murderous assault. The core legal question concerned whether subsequent police investigations and discrepancies regarding specific injuries attributed to the petitioners warranted interference with the High Court's discretion to deny bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that discrepancies regarding injury locations and inconsistent subsequent police investigation reports were insufficient at the leave stage to interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court in refusing bail. Consequently, the Supreme Court laid down the principle that inconsistent subsequent police investigation reports, standing alone, do not provide sufficient grounds to displace the High Court's discretion in denying post-arrest bail in heinous offences where specific fatal blows are alleged.
- Whether subsequent inconsistent police investigation reports provide sufficient ground for interference with the High Court's discretion in refusing bail?
- Can discrepancies in injury statements regarding the location of blows justify the grant of post-arrest bail at the leave to appeal stage?
- Whether petitioners alleged to have given fatal blows on the head of a victim are entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J.-The two petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the High Court of Lahore, dated 29-11-1980 whereby they were refused bail in a case registered against them under section 302/307/325/149/ 148, P. P. C. At Police Station, Mamun Kanjan, District Faisalabad on 16-11-79.
2. The two petitioners along with five others were changed of attacking, injuring and causing the death of Gaul Mohammad. Murderous assault was also committed by the two petitioners and their companions on Bashir. One of them Mohammad Hussain was allegedly armed with .12 bore gun and six others with lathis.
3. The learned Judge in the High Court refused the two petitioners bail after arrest on the ground that they were alleged to have given fatal blows on the head of the victim. The result of subsequent investigation with regard to the implication of others was not readily accepted as a ground for admitting them to bail.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that only Mehmood Akhtar petitioner No. 1 was accused of giving the injury on the head, the other petitioner was accused of given an injury on the elbow. This according to the learned counsel, was not kept in view while declining the bail to them, Further, it is contended that the subsequent investigations have led to altogether different reports and it appears that certain unnamed individuals were responsible for giving fatal blow to the deceased. In this respect our attention has been drawn to the challan submitted in Court.
5. On comparing the first information report and the injury statement we find that what has been taken to be an injury on the left elbow may be clerical mistake for the injury found on the zygomatic region of the victim. We would not, at this stage, like to go into it further. As regards the result of the subsequent investigation by the Police as they are not quite consistent inter se we would not consider them as sufficient for interference with the discretion exercised by the learned Judge in the High Court, the leave to appeal is therefore, refused.