FATEH MUHAMMAD vs The STATE
This criminal appeal by conversion arises from an order of the High Court which set aside the bail granted to the appellant by the Sessions Judge in a case registered under sections 502, 307 and 148 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the post-arrest bail of the appellant on the ground of vicarious liability without considering the specific grounds evaluated by the Sessions Judge. The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Judge had allowed bail on cogent grounds—including discrepancies between medical evidence and ocular accounts, lack of motive, police finding of innocence, and advanced age—which the High Court failed to advert to or properly reverse. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that an appellate or revisional court reviewing a bail cancellation order must consider and address the specific factual and medical grounds that weighed with the trial court in granting bail, rather than relying solely on abstract propositions of vicarious liability.
- Whether bail once granted by a trial court can be set aside without adverting to the cogent grounds that formed the basis of the bail order?
- Does the mere invocation of vicarious liability under an unlawful assembly justify the cancellation of bail without examining individual circumstances and medical evidence?
- Can discrepancies between ocular testimony and medical evidence serve as valid grounds for granting post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Section 502, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code
1. MUHAMMAD GUL, J.-In the course of hearing of arguments, we decided to convert this petition into a criminal appeal and to determine. It as such.
2. The appellant herein is one of the five accused in a case registered on 2-6-1975, at the instance of Noor Muhammad, as per F. I. R. No. 147/75, under sections 502, 307 and 148 read with 149, P. P. C. At P.
3. S. Chuharkana, District Sheikhupura. According to the prosecution version, the appellant being member of unlawful assembly caused hatchet injury to Muhammad Ashiq who died on the same day.
4. The learned Sessions Judge by well-reasoned order dated 9-9-1975 allowed bail to the appellant on the following grounds namely :-
(i) that according to the prosecution, the deceased was hit by a gunfire by Boota a co-accused but the autopsy of the deceased did not disclose any fire-arm injury on the dead body ;
(ii) that the eye-witnesses attributed three hatchet injuries one each to the appellant, Gbulam Haider and Wali Muhammad co-accused, but according to the medical evidence the deceased had only two such injuries ;
(iii) that the appellant. Had no motive to kill the deceased because "admittedly," the land dispute was between Ghulam Haider one of the co-accused on the one hand and the deceased Muhammad Ashiq on the other ;
(iv) that as a result of the police investigation, the appellant was reported to have been found innocent ; and
(v) that the appellant is about 72 years old.
5. The order granting bail to the appellant was set aside by High Court by means of the impugned order on the ground that the appellant as member of the unlawful assembly, was vicariously liable for the offence com--mitted in the course of rioting whether or not he was directly responsible for the same.
6. We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and consider that the order of the learned Sessions Judge allowing bail to the appellant proceeded on, cogent grounds but was reversed by the High Court without adverting to any of the above grounds, some of which were not controverted by learn counsel for the State