MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus STATE
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order rejecting the petitioners' bail application in a criminal case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioners were accused of murder and attempted murder, with the fatal injury specifically attributed to one petitioner. During the investigation, the police initially found the petitioners innocent and recommended case cancellation; however, the Illaqa Magistrate disagreed, concluding that evidence existed to warrant a trial, and directed the submission of a challan. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in denying bail despite the investigating agency's opinion of innocence. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the High Court provided cogent reasons for disregarding the police's opinion on the petitioners' involvement. The Court held that the trial court must remain uninfluenced by the bail proceedings and the investigating agency's initial findings, determining the guilt or innocence of the accused solely based on the evidence presented during the trial. Leave to appeal was refused.
- Is a Magistrate bound to accept a police report recommending the cancellation of a criminal case?
- Can a court deny bail even when the investigating agency has opined that the accused is innocent?
- Does an order refusing bail influence the trial court's subsequent determination of guilt or innocence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J .--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order, dated 15-9-1987, of the Lahore High Court, rejecting the bail application of the petitioners.
2. The petitioners have been arrested in a case registered at Police Station Shahkot, District Sheikhupura in respect of offences under sections 302 and 307, read with section 149, and section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The occurrence allegedly took place at 5.30 a.m. on 6-3-1987 and was reported to the police on the same day within two hours. The allegations against the petitioners are that they together with one Khan Muhammad fired at the haveli of the complainant party and killed Ahmad Khan. The fatal injury was attributed to Muhammad Khan petitioner.
3. The motive for the occurrence was stated to be an incident which took place four months earlier, during the course of which one Murtaza, brother of petitioners No.4 to 6, was killed. The deceased and his son together with seven other persons were challaned for causing the death of Murtaza. The deceased and his son had been released on bail about two months prior to the present occurrence.
4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency found the petitioners to be innocent and put up a report before the Illaqa Magistrate for cancellation of the case. The learned Magistrate did not accept the report and thought that from the evidence on record there was a case for the petitioners to answer. He also observed:-
"From the police report it is evident that encroachment has been made on Courts power by abusing certain evidence
Accordingly, he directed the investigating agency to submit a challan for onward transmission to the Court of Sessions for trial of the petitioners.
5. We have gone through the order of the High Court rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for bail and have also heard the learned counsel in support of this petition. We find that the learned Single Judge in the High Court has given cogent grounds for not accepting the opinion of the investigating agency with regard to the involvement of the petitioners in the occurrence and we see no justification for interfering with the view taken by him. Leave is therefore refused. We may, however, add that nothing in this order or in the order of the High Court should influence the trial Court in the course of the trial and that in recording its judgments on the question of guilt or innocence of the petitioners it shall proceed entirely on its own appreciation of the evidence produced before it.
M.I. /M-288/5 Petition dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- BATI KHAN and 2 others vs THE STATE 1989 P Cr. L J 2140