ABDUL GHAFFAR Versus ABDUL SULTAN
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Sind High Court dated 1-4-1986 regarding the grant of bail to respondents facing trial under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder and causing serious injuries with firearms. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting bail to accused persons facing serious violent charges where the State fully supports the petition for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that a good case for grant of leave is made out despite the non-service of notice on one of the respondents, and directed that the appeal be heard on the existing record with liberty to file additional documents. The key principle laid down is that leave to appeal may be granted in appropriate criminal matters supported by the State even if procedural service on a respondent is temporarily incomplete, provided the interests of justice so warrant.
- Whether leave to appeal can be granted against an order of the High Court regarding the grant of bail in a murder case?
- Can leave to appeal be granted when one of the respondents has not been personally served with notice but the State fully supports the petition?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J ‑‑ This is a petition for leave to appeal from the order passed by a learned Judge of Sind High Court dated 1‑4‑1986 disposing of three criminal miscellaneous applications relating to grant of bail to respondents 1 to 3 who are facing trial in a case under sections 302, 307/34, P.P.C. for having caused the death of Abdul Sattar and serious injuries to several persons with their respective fire‑arms.
2. On 17‑6‑1986 when the petition came for hearing, notice was issued to the three respondents to show cause why the petition should not be converted into an appeal and decided accordingly. Mr. Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate‑on‑Record represents respondents 1 to 2 but notice issued to respondent 3 has not been personally served on him and he is not present. His brother is however present and he states that the respondent 3 has left his village and will return after about 10 days.
3. Learned Additional Advocate‑General who appears for the State fully supports the petition. In the circumstances we feel that since a good case for grant of leave is made out, it is not necessary to wait for the notice to be served on respondent 3 personally, and therefore grant leave to appeal and allow the petition.
4. The appeal will be heard on the present record in August 1986. It is however open to the parties to file additional documents, if any.
5. M.I./A‑2/S Leave granted.