MUHAMMAD AZEEM ALIAS MUHAMMAD AZIM Versus STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had previously dismissed the petitioners' application for bail in a criminal case. The petitioners were charged under Section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged abduction of a seven-month-old infant from the mother's custody within the premises of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's refusal to grant bail was justified given the circumstances of the case, which involved a failure to comply with judicial directions to recover and return the abducted child. The Supreme Court reviewed the impugned judgment and the factual background, specifically noting the petitioners' non-compliance with prior court orders regarding the recovery of the minor. The Court found the High Court's findings to be unexceptionable and legally sound. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the petition for leave to appeal lacked merit and dismissed it, thereby affirming the denial of bail to the accused petitioners.
- Is the refusal of bail justified when the accused fails to comply with judicial directions to recover an abducted minor?
- Does a petition for leave to appeal merit consideration when the High Court's findings are based on unexceptionable facts and circumstances?
- Section 364-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
S.A. NUSRAT , J. ‑‑The petitioners who are charged with an offence punishable under section 364‑A, P.P.C. approached the High Court for grant of bail which was dismissed and they have now come up to this Court seeking leave to appeal.
2. According to the F.I.R. lodged in the case a minor child aged 7 months was abducted by the petitioners from the lap of her mother Mst. Shenaz when she was in the premises of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench. This fact was brought to the notice of the High Court whereupon Moulvi Imam Bakhsh was directed to return the child to her mother. As the order was not complied with, the High Court directed S.P. Leiah to recover the child but in vain. Hence a case was registered against the petitioners on the directions of the High Court.
3. We heard the learned counsel and have gone through the impugned judgment. The findings of the learned High Court in the facts and circumstances of the case are unexceptionable. The petition merits no consideration and is dismissed.
S. Q./M‑41/S Petition dismissed.