Noor Aslam vs The State through P.G. and another
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the Peshawar High Court's order cancelling the petitioner's bail in a case involving a murderous assault. The petitioner had been granted bail by an Additional Sessions Judge, but the High Court subsequently recalled this concession. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the trial court's discretionary order granting bail. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the trial court erred by ignoring the petitioner's prolonged abscondence and the severity of the injuries sustained by the victim, which prima facie attracted the provisions of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court affirmed that while the grant of bail is a discretionary relief, such discretion must be structured on sound judicial considerations objectively deducible from the record. Specifically, in cases punishable with imprisonment of ten years or more, the disregard of these judicial considerations constitutes a strong ground for the cancellation of bail by a superior court, justifying interference with the initial order.
- Can a superior court interfere with the discretionary grant of bail by a trial court if the trial court failed to consider relevant judicial factors?
- Does the prolonged abscondence of an accused constitute a relevant factor for the cancellation of bail?
- Is the disregard of sound judicial considerations in granting bail a sufficient ground for a High Court to cancel that bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.--- The petitioner, accused in a case of murderous assault, was granted bail by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Lakki Marwat vide order dated 29.1.2021; the concession was recalled by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of Peshawar High Court at Bannu Bench vide impugned order dated 16.04.2021, leave to appeal wherefrom is being prayed for, primarily on the ground that in the absence of strong reasons there was no occasion for the High Court to, interfere with exercise of discretion to disturb an order, interlocutory in nature, particularly when the concession was not alleged to have been abused.
2. According to the prosecution, on the eventful day i.e. 3.9.2019, the petitioner targeted Wali Ullah PW with his Kalashnikov in consequence whereof the latter sustained two bullet wounds on right epigastrium and left hand; a stray bullet hit a nearby transformer as well, in the backdrop of a dispute raging between the injured and the assailant; medico legal examination of even date, under a police docket, confirmed receipt of two entry wounds with a corresponding exit. After the incident, the petitioner stayed away from law for a considerable span of time.
3. Heard.
4. Argument that exceptionally strong grounds to justify cancellation of bail were not available with the High Court do not hold water in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case; complainant's miraculous survival despite massive damage to the epigastrium region, confirmed by medical examination shortly after the assault, prima facie, attracted the mischief envisaged by section 324 of the Pakistan. Penal Code, 1860 and, thus, constituted "reasonable grounds" within the contemplation of section of 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, standing in impediment to release of an offender in the absence of any consideration calling for further probe. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also ran into error by conveniently describing petitioner's disappearance from law as inconsequential, errors that have rightly been rectified by the learned Judge-in-Chamber. No doubt, grant of bail is a discretionary relief, however, exercise of discretion must be structured on sound judicial considerations, objectively deducible from the record of the case, particularly in cases punishable with imprisonment of ten years or above Ad, thus, grant of bail in disregard thereof by itself constitute a strong ground, justifiably calling for interference.
5. Impugned order being within the remit of law calls for no interference. Petition fails.