MUSHTAQ AND Others vs THE STATE AND Another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioners by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur. The High Court's cancellation was primarily based on the petitioners' failure to appear in court despite service of notice. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the cancellation of bail was justified given the circumstances and the merits of the case. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the appellants attributed with inflicting fatal blows were not entitled to bail, thereby dismissing their appeal. However, the Court found the remaining appellants entitled to bail, setting aside the High Court's cancellation order and restoring the original bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge. The key principle established is that while bail cancellation may be considered for non-appearance, the appellate court retains the discretion to evaluate the merits of the case to determine whether the accused are entitled to bail, distinguishing between those attributed with specific fatal acts and those with lesser roles.
- Is an accused person who is attributed with fatal blows entitled to bail?
- Can an appellate court restore a bail order that was previously cancelled by the High Court?
- Does the failure of an accused to appear in court justify the cancellation of bail regardless of the merits of the case?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, ACTG. C. J.--Bail was granted to the petitioners by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur but on application by Liaqat A.I complainant it was cancelled by the High Court vide the impugned order dated 20th November, 1982 mainly on the ground that the accused petitioners did not turn up in spite of having been served.
The petitioners seek leave to appeal against this order.
2. The main contention urged by the counsel for the appellants before us was that there was no specific order by the learned Judge in Chamber requiring the appellants to appear before the Court.
3. We have, however, heard the learned counsel for the parties on merits and gone through the relevant documents including the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, granting them bail. Without making any observation which may prejudice the case of either party we are of the view that Mushtaq Ahmad and Rafi, appel--lants, who have been attributed the fatal blows are not entitled to grant of bail. Consequently, we convert this petition into appeal and dismiss it qua Mushtaq and Muhammad Rafi appellants.
4. The remaining appellants are entitled to grant of bail. The order of the High Court cancelling their bail is, therefore, set aside and the earlier order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge granting bail to them is restored.