MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH ETC. vs The STATE
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court rejecting their application for bail in a criminal case registered under Section 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of attempting to take forcible possession of a plot of land, inflicting dang blows, and removing valuables. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail on the grounds of a supplementary statement by the complainant favoring a co-accused and alleged discrepancies in the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the evidence collected prima facie supported the prosecution case and declined to interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the High Court, as no question of violation of a principle of law relevant to a bail matter arose. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's discretionary refusal of bail when no principle of law has been violated?
- Does a supplementary statement favoring a co-accused automatically entitle other co-accused petitioners to bail?
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
M. S. H. QURHBHI, J.--The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the order of the High Court rejecting their application for bail in a case under section 394, P. P. C. The petitioners and their co- accused Muhammad ' Rafi are alleged to have tried to take possession of a plot of land from the complainant and in the process to have inflicted dang blows on him and to have forcibly removed a timepiece and a tape-recorder containing a radio, belonging to him. It appears that Muhammad Ishaque, com--plainant in the case, had subsequently made a supplementary statement favouring Muhammad Rafi, alleging that he was empty-handed and had only raised' a lalkara. It is submitted that co-accused Muhammad Rafi, who is on bail granted by the trial Court, is a crippled person who could not carry or wield a stick and as such the assertion qua him made in the F. I. R.
Was false, and that on account of two versions being given by the same complainant, the benefit should have gone to the present petitioners too.
2. We find that the original F. I. R. Had contained only a general allegation that the accused party had come armed with dangs and had inflicted injuries on the complainant. It had not been specifically alleged that Muhammad Rafi had carried a dang or bad inflicted injury. The learned Judge in the High Court considered the petitioner's contentions but had come to the view that the evidence so far collected, prima facie, supported the prosecution case. In the circumstance, we are not inclined to interfere with the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction by the High Court, particularly when no question of violation of a principle of law relevant to a bail matter arises. The petition is dismissed.