ROSH A N vs SARDARA and 3 others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order granting bail to three respondents accused of murder under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, the complainant, argued that the High Court's exercise of discretion was arbitrary because it relied on an Investigating Officer's report that had not been accepted by higher prosecution authorities. The Supreme Court examined the record and held that the High Court was justified in considering the Investigating Officer's report, which was based on witness statements, as a factor creating reasonable doubt regarding the respondents' involvement, thereby necessitating further inquiry. The Court affirmed that bail is a matter of judicial discretion and found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious reasoning in the High Court's order. Additionally, the Court noted that the significant delay in the trial, with no prosecution witnesses examined eleven months after the submission of the challan, provided a further ground to decline interference. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretionary grant of bail if the order is not arbitrary or capricious?
- Does an Investigating Officer's report recommending innocence constitute a valid ground for the High Court to grant bail pending further inquiry?
- Is a significant delay in the commencement of trial a relevant factor for the Supreme Court to consider when deciding whether to interfere with a bail order?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD GUL, J.-- The first three respondents herein alongwith two others are accused in a case under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. On the basis of F.I.R. Lodged at 5-15 p.m. At P.S. Piarianwali, Tehsil Phalia District Gujrat as a sequel to an incident in village Sangpal, at a distance of 6 miles from the P.S. In the course of which All Muhammad was killed.
2. ' On an application moved by the three respondents, they were released on bail by the High Court vide order, dated 2nd October, 1975 on the ground that the Investigating Officer on the basis of the statements made during the investigation by certain employees of the Forest Department, were reported to be innocent and it was recommended that they be showed in column No,2 of the challan. The recommendation was however, not supported by the prosecution agency and the respondents were shown accused in column No, 3 alongwith the other two accused who according to learned counsel have been refused bail.
3. ' The petitioner who is complainant in the case seeks leave against the order of the High Court.
4. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the High Court allowed bail to the respondents for reason which virtually amounted to an arbitrary exercise of discretion in their favour and that in any case, the reason which actually weighed with the learned Judge amounted to no reason at all.
5. It was stressed that the report of the Investigating Officer was not accepted by the higher authorities and in any event the report could not be treated as decisive in the matter.
6. We have been taken through the F.I.R. In which no doubt the three respondents have been named as among the assailants of the deceased. But it is wrong to suggest that the order of the High Court was not based on any reason or was arbitrary. As pointed out already what weighed with the learned Judge was the report of the Investigating Officer which was based upon the statements of certain employees of the Forest Department. Therefore, the learned Judge was justified to observe that it created a doubt as to the respondents being concerned in the transaction which required further enquiry. The matter being entirely discretionary, we do not consider that it can be reasonably said that the impugned order is arbitrary or capricious as to lay a foundation for interference by this Court.
7. ' In the course of arguments, it also transpired that although about 11 months have gone by since the challan was submitted, not a single prosecution witness has been examined in the case so far.
8. This in or opinion, is an additional reason against interference by this Court.
9. ' The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- SALAT vs AHMED alias AHMA and another 1990 MLD 2057