SARDAR ALI vs SHER HUSSAIN AND OTHERS
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court dated 21-4-1984, whereby the High Court cancelled the bail of one co-accused but maintained the pre-trial bail granted to respondent Sher Hussain in a murder case. The core legal question was whether old age and the loss of sight in one eye constitute valid grounds of physical infirmity to justify the retention of bail under the relevant criminal procedure provisions. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court had rightly considered the physical infirmity and old age of the accused in maintaining the bail order, and consequently found no reason to interfere. The petition was accordingly dismissed, upholding the discretionary exercise of judicial power in refusing to cancel bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Whether old age and loss of sight in one eye constitute valid grounds for maintaining bail in a murder case?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an order maintaining bail when the High Court has properly considered physical infirmity?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-By this petition leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Peshawar High Court, dated 21-4-1984 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 68 of 1984.
2. In the murder case of Ahmad Ali three persons were charged namely Imdad Khan alias Daday, Shahfarash Hussain and respondent No. 1 Sher Hussain. Sher Hussain and Imdad Khan were arrested while Shahfarash Hussain is still absconder. The first mentioned two accused moved an application for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar who granted bail to them.
Petitioner Sardar Ali moved an application for the cancellation of bail granted to the aforesaid two accused, which was heard by the Acting Chief Justice S. Usman Ali Shah who, vide his order dated 21-4-1984, cancelled the bail granted to Imdad Khan and ordered his arrest but the order as regards grant of bail to Sher Hussain was, however, maintained on the ground that he was of old age and blind from one eye.
3. Learned counsel's contentions are that the impugned order is contrary to the provision of section 497 subsection (5) and section 498, Cr.P.C. That in refusing to cancel the bail of the respondent the learned High Court Judge has not kept in view the provision of section 497, Cr. P. C. As mere loss of sight of one eye is not a ground equivalent to or synonymous with physical infirmity ; that ground of old age is also not a reason for admitting the accused to bail.
4. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and find that the learned Acting Chief Justice of the High Court has rightly taken into consideration the physical infirmity as well as the old age of the accused. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and consequently the petition is dismissed.