ABDUL QAYYUM and another vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court cancelling the bail previously granted to the petitioners by the Sessions Court in a criminal case involving charges under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioners were accused of abducting and raping a minor girl, Mst. Majida. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in cancelling the bail based on the material available on the record, specifically the complainant's statement and medical evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that reasonable grounds existed to implicate the petitioners in the alleged offences. The Court held that the High Court's re-examination of the facts and its subsequent cancellation of bail was unexceptionable and did not warrant interference. The key principle affirmed is that an appellate court will not interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in bail cancellation matters when the lower court has properly evaluated the incriminating material, such as witness statements and medical reports, to establish reasonable grounds for the accused's involvement.
- Does the High Court have the authority to cancel bail granted by a Sessions Court if reasonable grounds exist for the accused's implication?
- Is the presence of abrasions on a victim's body considered supporting material for allegations of rape in bail proceedings?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in a bail cancellation matter if the decision is found to be unexceptionable?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- The petitioners who are charged under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, seek leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 5-3-1984 whereby bail granted to them earlier by the Sessions Juge was cancelled.
2. ' The petitioners alongwith two others are charged by Muhammad Sabir the father of Mst. Majida said to be aged 14/15 years who was abducted and raped on 13-1-1984 and the days following. The statement of Mst. Majida was recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. She was cross-examined at that stage on behalf of the petitioners and others. She was medically examined also and two abrasions were found on her thighs. The hymen was absent. The swabs did not show stains or presence of semen. Mst. Majida charged the two petitioners directly for having raped her and Abdul Qayyum for having abducted her.
3. ' The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, considered it a case for further inquiry and admitted to ball the petitioners and others charged for the offence.
4. An application was then moved by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail. The learned Judge in the High Court re-examined the facts and held that reasonable grounds exist so far as implication A of the two petitioners was concerned and the case of the other two was distinguishable from them. Hence their bail was cancelled but that of their companions was maintained.
5. ' From the F.I.R. And the medical report the age of Mst. Majida appears to be 15 years. She has alleged her abduction and rape by the two petitioners. The presence of two abrasions on her thighs has been taken to be a supporting material so far as her allegation is concerned. It is true that Wajid's name does not appear in the F.I.R. But it does appear in the statement of Mst. Majida, recorded after her recovery and she has charged him of having committed once rape on her.
6. ' We find that the view taken by the High Court is unexceptionable and the exercise of discretion does not merit further examination or interference at or level. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.