MIAN DAD Versus STATE
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.‑‑ ‑Leave to appeal has been sought in this bail matter; against the order of the High Court; whereby the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled.
2. The bail in this case was granted on the consideration that although the case was registered under section 302, P.P.C. as of murder, the F.I.R. which is the basis of the prosecution case (so far) made it a case under section 304, Part 1, P.P.C. for the reason that the accused/petitioner claimed to have acted on grave and sudden provocation. And thus, caused injuries to his wife as well as her paramour who, according to him, was caught red‑handed on surprise visit to his own house. The F.I.R. is also‑based on the statement of the accused to the above fact. The High Court on difference of opinion held that the offence in any case being also punishable with imprisonment for life the accused would not be entitled to bail.
3. Learned counsel has argued that it may be possible to hold that when a case is made out under section 304, Part 1, P.P.C. the offence being punishable with imprisonment for life bail is prohibited under subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. But, according to him while under subsection (1) of section 497, CI.P:C. the Court has no jurisdiction to grant bail if on merits such a finding is rendered, as the word used for such command is "shall". But, he further argued the considerations when determining the question of "cancellation" are different because subsection (5) of section 497, Cr.P.C. under which power is exercised, does not command the Court to cancel the bail even when the offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and further even if the grant of bail is prohibited under subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. According to dim the discretion left in the Court under subsection (5) of section 497, Cr.P.C. is pari materia with the principles which apply to the setting aside of the orders of acquittal.
4. The proposition advanced by the learned counsel has prima facie force and also support of the authorities of this Court. Leave to appeal accordingly, is granted.'
5. M.BA./M‑1618/S Leave granted.
Cited by 8 cases
- Hussain vs State etc PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1454
- STATE through Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab, Multan vs MUHAMMAD PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 241
- Ms. ZOHRA PIRZADA and 3 others vs SSP, ISLAMABAD and 5 others 2015 PLJ Islamabad 411
- ZOHRA PIRZADA and 3 others vs S.S.P. ISLAMABAD and 5 others 2015 PLJ Islamabad 411, 2015 P Cr. L J 1667
- ZOHRA PIRZADA & 3 OTHERS vs SSP, ISLAMABAD & 5 OTHERS 2015-IHC-186
- QAISER ALI vs THE STATE and anothers 1999 PLD Lahore 473
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL LAKHANI vs THE STATE and 2 others 1993-P Cr. L J 1386
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus ABDUL HAMEED 1997 PCRLJ 597