IMRANUDDIN AND Another vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which rejected the petitioners' application for post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail, primarily arguing that a cross-case inquiry report suggested mutual responsibility for the occurrence and that the accused in the cross-case had already been granted bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision to refuse bail. The Court held that the High Court's order suffered from no legal infirmity, noting that the specific allegations against the petitioners—including a direct charge of murder—were serious. The Court established the principle that the mere fact that accused persons in a cross-case have been released on bail does not automatically entitle the petitioners to similar relief, especially when the allegations against the petitioners are more serious in nature. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused.
- Does the grant of bail to accused persons in a cross-case automatically entitle the petitioners in the main case to bail?
- Is the existence of a cross-case inquiry report sufficient grounds to mandate the release of accused persons on bail?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's order refusing bail if the order suffers from no legal infirmity?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-The two petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 17-10-1982 whereby their application for bail on charges under section 302/307/149/148, P. P. C. Was rejected.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, against the petitioners was that they along-with ten others attached the complainant party. Imranuddin fired a shot killing Muhammad Arshad. Asrar gave a toka blow on the head of Shada which he survived. The other companions of the petitioners inflicted injuries on other seven persons.
3. The learned Judge in the High Court while rejecting the bail application held that the case against them was such that bail could not be granted. There was a direct charge against Imranuddin of firing a pistol shot killing thereby Muhammad Arshad and against Asrar of having given a toka blow on the head after receiving which Shada survived.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks bail on two grounds. Firstly it is contended that on the cross-case filed by Farman an inquiry was held by a -Magistrate and in his report under section 202 of the Cr. P. C. He has reported that though Imranuddin does not get absolved from causing the death of Muhammad Arshad, some of the members of the complainant party were also responsible for the fight and the rioting and the injuries that were caused in the same occurrence.
5. The other ground taken is that as in the cross-case the accused charged by the petitioners and their companions have been admitted to bail the petitioners should also receive similar or equal treatment in the matter of bail.
6. We have attended to all the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and find that the High. Court's order suffers from no legal infirmity such as may require interference by this Court.
7. The reasons given by the, High Court are sound and merely because in the cross-case the persons charged for having caused injuries have been released on bail is no ground for releasing the petitioners on bail, particularly so when the allegations against them are more serious. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
Cited by 3 cases
- Sahab Khan Junejo vs Abid Hussain Junejo 2020 SHC 1236
- ALI GUL Versus State 2022 PCrLJN 67
- WAZEER ALI Versus State 2019 PCrLJN 24