FAZAL HAQUE vs THE STATE
This matter concerns two petitions for special leave to appeal regarding the cancellation of bail in a criminal case involving murder and injuries. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in cancelling the bail of one accused (Fazal Haque) while refusing to cancel the bail of four co-accused, despite all being exonerated in the final police investigation report. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in cancelling Fazal Haque's bail. The Court reasoned that for the purposes of bail, an accused is entitled to the benefit of the opinion expressed by the latest investigating officer, particularly when there is no sound reason to distinguish the case of one accused from co-accused who were granted bail. Consequently, the Court dismissed the complainant's petition seeking cancellation of the co-accused's bail and allowed the appeal of Fazal Haque, confirming his interim bail. The key principle established is that an accused is entitled to the benefit of a favorable police investigation report at the bail stage, and bail should not be cancelled without distinguishing the case from co-accused who remain on bail.
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of a favorable opinion in the latest police investigation report for the purpose of bail?
- Can the High Court cancel the bail of an accused when co-accused persons, similarly exonerated by the police, remain on bail without a sound basis for distinction?
- Does the existence of eye-witness testimony attributing a fatal blow automatically override a police investigation report exonerating the accused at the bail stage?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Law Reforms Ordinance 1975
ORDER
1. ' ANWARUL HAQ, J.-- This order will dispose of Criminal Petitions for special leave to appeal bearing Nos. 224 and 271,of 1975. The first one is by Fazal Haque, one of the accused persons, whose bail has been cancelled by the Lahore High Court by its order dated the 26th of May 1975, whereas the second petition is by the complainant who is aggrieved by the refusal of the High Court to cancel the bail allowed by the Sessions Judge to the for respondents.
2. ' In an incident occurring on the 29th of September, 1974, one person by the name of Shafqat was killed, whereas injuries were caused to the complainant Zafar lqbal and his companions. In the first information report eight persons were named as the assailants including Fazal Haque (petitioner in Petition No,224/75) and the for respondents cited in Petition No,271. The matter was investigted repeatedly by several Police Officers, and in the final report submitted by Inspector Abdul Hamid of the C.I.A., Fazal Haque and the other for accused were reported to be innocent. It was further stated that the incident had developed all of a sudden when the parties were returning from a Mela.
3. However, the challan was submitted against all the eight accused persons cited in the F.I.R., and the matter was left to the discretion of the Court.
4. ' It was stated at the Bar that the inquiry proceedings had made substantial progress as out of for eye-witnesses three had already been examined, but before the case could be committed to the Court of Session, the commitment proceedings had been abolished under the law Reforms Ordinance, 1975, with the result that the case is now automatically pending before the Sessions Court for trial.
5. We shall first take up complainant's prayer for the cancellation of bail allowed to respondents Nazir Ahmad, Abdul Haq, Khurshidul Haq and Ismail. As already stated, the latest investigation report has exonerated them, and in any case the part assigned to them is only of causing injuries to the complainant and his companions, excluding the deceased Muhammad Shafqat. In the circumstances, the learned Judge in the High Court appears to us to have exercised his discretion properly in refusing to cancel their bail. We see no justification to interfere in the matter. We would accordingly dismiss Petition No,271 of 1975.
6. ' As regards Petition No, 224 of 1975 by the accused Fazal Haque, we have decided to convert this petition into an appeal and dispose it of accordingly.
7. The High Court has cancelled the bail previously allowed to the accused Fazal Haque mainly on the ground that although the latest Investigating Officer had exonerated this man also, yet the eye- witnesses had consistently attributed the fatal Dang blow to him. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant as well as for the State that the case of Fazal Haque did not fall under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Cr.P.C., as no further inquiry was needed.
8. ' On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. Ataullah Sajjad, appearing for Fazal Haque, that the investigation has shown that the motive given in the F.I.R. Was not correct, and that the incident had originated all of a sudden when the parties were returning limn a Mela. And the elders of the family were falsely implicated, although the actual incident had taken place between the younger members.
9. ' We do not think it appropriate at this stage to express any opinion as to the merits of the respective contentions advanced by the learned counsel for both sides, but we consider that for the perposes of bail the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the opinion expressed by the latest Investigating Officer, and the High Court was, therefore, not justified in cancelling his bail, without there being any sound reasons for distinguishing his case from the other for co-accused. Fazal Haque had been allowed interim bail by a learned Judge of this Court by his order dated the 6th of June 1975. We would accept this appeal and confirm the interim bail already allowed.
Cited by 1 case
- LIAQAT ALI Versus THE STATE 1994 PLD 172