MEHAR HUSSAIN vs ALLAH WASAYA AND 2 OTHERS
This matter concerns an application for the suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed by three respondents who were initially convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, subsequently acquitted by the High Court, and then arrested following the Supreme Court's grant of leave to appeal against their acquittal. The core legal question was whether the respondents were entitled to bail pending the final adjudication of the appeal against their acquittal. The Supreme Court held that no case for bail was established for two of the respondents, Allah Wasaya and Khadim Hussain, and consequently rejected their applications. However, regarding the third respondent, Ghulam Muhammad, the Court granted bail based on medical grounds, specifically a fractured leg that remained untreated despite efforts within the jail, a fact which the complainant's counsel did not refute. The key principle laid down is that while bail pending appeal against acquittal is not automatic, the court may exercise its discretion to grant bail where specific, substantiated medical exigencies exist that cannot be addressed within the prison system.
- Can bail be granted to an accused pending an appeal against their acquittal?
- Does a substantiated, untreated medical condition constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail to a respondent in an appeal against acquittal?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-Allah Wasaya, Ghulam Muhammad and Khadim Hussain applicants- respondents were tried and convicted of offence under section 302/34, P. P. C. But were acquitted by the High Court by its judgment, dated 8-12-1979. The complainant-appellant filed a petition for leave to appeal against their acquittal which was granted by this Court on 12-6-1983. Non-bailable warrants for their arrest were also issued. They were consequently arrested.
' All the three accused have now applied for suspension of their sentence through the present application which is opposed by the counsel for the complainant-appellant.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. No case for grant of bail to Allah Wasaya and Khadim Hussain has been made out. The application with respect to them is, therefore, rejected.
3. As for Ghulam Muhammad respondent, his counsel informed us that one of his legs has been fractured and all efforts to treat the same in jail have failed. Counsel for the complainant has not refuted this fact. We, therefore, accept the application qua him and grant him bail in the sum of Rs, 30,000 with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Muzaffargarh. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.