MIHRI KHAN Versus GHULAM RASOOL
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal directed against the orders of the Lahore High Court granting bail to the respondents, Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Bashir. The core legal question concerns whether there was sufficient material implicating the respondents to warrant withholding bail in a case involving an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court granted leave, converted the petitions into appeals, and held that upon examining the relevant statements on record, including extra-judicial confessions and statements before respectables, a prima facie case was made out and there were reasonable grounds to believe the respondents were guilty. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's orders and cancelled the bail granted to the respondents. The key principle laid down is that where sufficient prima facie material exists connecting an accused to an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment, bail ought not to be granted, and appellate intervention is justified to cancel bail improperly granted.
- Whether bail can be cancelled when there is sufficient material showing a prima facie case against the accused?
- Does an extra-judicial confession made before respectables constitute reasonable grounds for believing the accused is guilty of a capital offense?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.- -Mohri Khan complainant sought leave to appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 28-1-1987 and 7-3-1987 granting bail to Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Bashir respondents. We issued notice to the State as well as the respondents for today as we proposed to hear and decide the matter finally. We, therefore, grant leave and proceed to dispose of the matters as appeals.
2. Counsel for the parties are present. The learned counsel for the petitioner (complainant) submits that Mst. Ghulam Fatima made a confession implicating herself as well as the two respondents before respectables including the grandmother of Muhammad Bashir accused respondent and that even the father of Muhammad Bashir had made a statement that he (i.e. Muhammad Bashir) had confessed the matter to him. As such the learned Court had erred in granting bail to the two respondents on the ground that there was no material against them. The learned State counsel supported the petition while the learned counsel for the respondents supported the High Court judgment.
3. We do not wish to record a detailed order which may prejudice the respondents at the trial, but think if sufficient to observe that after hearing the counsel for the parties and going through relevant statements placed on the record by the parties, we feel that there is sufficient material to show that a prima facie case is made out against the two respondents and that there are reasonable grounds for believing that they are guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
We are, therefore, of the view that this is a fit case for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents. We, therefore, allow the appeals and cancel the bail granted to the two respondents.
S.Q./M-229/S Bail cancelled.