JAHAN KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AKBAR, etc.
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court which granted bail to two respondents in a criminal case registered under Section 302 and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the respondents were attributed specific roles in the commission of the offense and that the High Court erred in granting bail, relying on medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries. The Supreme Court examined the High Court's reasoning and found that the High Court had distinguished the respondents' case from the other accused in a manner that was neither illegal nor contrary to established legal principles. The Supreme Court held that a mere difference in the appreciation of facts regarding bail is insufficient grounds for the Supreme Court to interfere with a High Court's discretion. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, affirming that appellate interference is not warranted where the lower court's exercise of discretion is legally sound.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's order granting bail solely based on a different appreciation of facts?
- Is the grant of bail by a High Court subject to interference if the reasoning is not illegal or contrary to principle?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- Leave to appeal has been sought from order dated 29-11-1983 of the Lahore High Court; whereby respondents No. 1 and 2 were allowed bail in a case registered under section 302, read with section 34, P.P.C.
2. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to show that the two respondents having been attributed a definite role each, should not have been granted bail. He advanced arguments on merits and also cited case-law. He also relied on Modi's Medical Jurisprudence to show the difference between abrasions caused by a fall and those caused by a stick blow.
3. ' Both the learned counsel for the Caveators (the said respondents and the State) opposed the petition and also argued on merits of the case.
4. The learned Judge in the High Court has distinguished the case of the two respondents--total accused being for, in a manner which cannot be deemed as illegal or against any principle. The mere' fact that the reason be different appreciation of facts for bail, cannot be a ground for interference by this Court. The cases cited by the learned counsel are distinguishable. There is no force in this petition] It is accordingly dismissed.