NOOR HASSAN Versus STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail by the High Court in a murder case. The petitioner, Noor Hassan, was charged alongside co-accused for the murder of Fazal Rahu. The prosecution alleged that while the petitioner was unarmed, he instigated the primary assailant, who was armed with a hatchet, to complete the act and further participated by snatching the weapon from the complainant. The petitioner sought bail on the ground of parity, arguing that his case was identical to that of two other co-accused who had been granted bail. The Supreme Court examined the specific role attributed to the petitioner and distinguished his circumstances from those of the co-accused, noting that the latter had received bail based on medical evidence. Finding no justification to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in refusing bail, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the denial of bail to the petitioner.
- Does the principle of parity apply when the role attributed to the petitioner differs from that of co-accused who have been granted bail?
- Is the Supreme Court required to interfere with the High Court's discretion in refusing bail where the petitioner's specific role in the crime is distinct from co-accused?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J. ‑‑Noor Hassan, alongwith Fazal Chang, Khamiso and Lakhoo, was booked for the murder of Fazal Rahu.
2. The prosecution case is that except for Fazal Chang, who was armed with hatchet, the others were empty‑handed, and the role assigned to them was that after Fatal Chang had caused the hatchet blows to Fatal Rahu, they instigated him to finish him off and also snatched the hatchet from the complainant who had caught hold of its handle.
3. The learned counsel contends that the case of Noor Hassan is on the same footing as Khamiso and Lakhoo, who have been granted bail. But that is not so as they were given the benefit on the basis of the medical evidence
4. Having examined the case and the part ascribed to Noor Hassan, we do not see any justification to interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court in refusing bail to him.
5. The retition is, accordingly, dismissed.
6. M.A.K./N‑110/S Petition dismissed.