HAMEED AKHTAR vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court affirming the refusal of post-arrest bail to the petitioner by the Sessions Judge. The petitioner, along with co-accused, was charged with murder and causing hurt, with the specific allegation of firing a shotgun hitting the deceased in the belly, leading to fatal injuries. The petitioner argued that bail should be granted based on disputed facts and alternative versions of the occurrence. The High Court rejected these contentions, noting that the plea of two versions had been found false during police investigation. The Supreme Court reviewed the orders of the lower courts and held that the matters raised had been properly evaluated by both courts below. Finding no legal error, infirmity, or improper exercise of judicial discretion in refusing bail at this preliminary stage where evidence appreciation is required, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent orders refusing bail where judicial discretion has been properly exercised?
- Can disputed questions of fact requiring detailed appreciation of evidence be resolved at the stage of deciding a bail application?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of an alternative version of the event that was found false during investigation?
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court dated 20-9-1982 whereby the refusal of bail to him by the Sessions Judge on 13tb June, 1982 was affirmed.
2. The petitioner along-with 2 others is charged for the murder of one Muhammad Aslam and for injuring Rehmat A.I. The specific role attributed to the petitioner is that he fired a shot-gun hitting the deceased on the belly. The fire-arm injuries were found on the belly of the deceased and nine pellets were recovered from inside the body.
3. The Sessions Judge refused bail to the petitioner on the ground- that the contentions related to the appreciation of evidence of a highly disputed nature which could not be undertaken at that initial stage.
4. The High Court re-examined the submissions of the petitioner and held that it did not justify the grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made the same controversial facts the basis for grant of bail to the petitioner which have already been considered by the two courts and rejected at this stage. The High Court went so far as to observe that "the contention raised by the learned counsel that it is a case of two versions and that Ghulam Rasool and another have also participated in the occurrence has been found false during the investi--gation."
6. We find that the matters which are sought to be made the basis for grant of bail to the petitioner have already been considered by the two courts and their appreciation of arguments does not suffer from any legal error or infirmity such as may require interference by this Court. It appears that the discretion has been properly exercised. Hence leave to appeal is refused.