WALAYAT AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the bail applications of the petitioners, Walayat and Abbas, in a case involving charges under Section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal for final disposal. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the same relief of bail as a co-accused, Riaz, who had previously been granted bail by the High Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the case of petitioner Abbas was analogous to that of Riaz, as both were alleged to have inflicted simple injuries with a hatchet. Regarding petitioner Walayat, the Court examined the post-mortem report and determined that the alleged hammer blow to the ankle was not supported by medical evidence, as no such injury was found on the deceased. Consequently, the Court held that both petitioners were entitled to bail on the principle of consistency and lack of incriminating medical evidence, allowing the appeal and granting bail accordingly.
- Is an accused entitled to bail if their case is similar to a co-accused who has already been granted bail?
- Does the absence of medical evidence supporting an alleged injury entitle an accused to bail?
- Can the Supreme Court convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal for final disposal?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Counsel, who was issued notice on the last date of hearing, we convert this petition into appeal and proceed to dispose it of as such.
2. Walayat and Abbas petitioners are aggrieved against the rejection of their bail application by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, vide order dated 18-5-1983.
3. The facts, briefly, are that the petitioners were accused alongwith 5 others including one Riaz, inter alia, of an offence under section 302/149, P. P. C. They applied for bail before the High Court. It allowed bail to Riaz but dismissed the bail application of the petitioners.
4. It is contended on behalf of Abbas that his case is similar to that of Riaz who was granted bail by the High Court. Riaz has been granted bail on the ground that he had given a hatchet blow to the deceased and that the injury was simple one. Abbas too is stated to have given a hatchet blow on the right arm of the deceased which turned out to be simple. We, therefore, agree that his case is similar to that of Riaz. As such he is entitled to bail.
5. With regard to Walayat petitioner, he is alleged to have given a hammer blow on the ankle of the deceased but no such injury was found on B the person of the deceased. On examining the post- mortem report we find it to be correct. He, too, is entitled to bail.
6. We, therefore, allow the appeal and grant bail to the petitioners in the sum of Rs, 20,000 each, with two sureties each, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Sheikhupura.
Cited by 11 cases
- ABDUR RASHID vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Iterior and 6 others 2019 PLD Peshawar 17
- LUTUF ULLAH vs The STATE 2018 MLD 794
- ANJUM IQBAL VARSEY vs THE STATE Through F.I.A., Police Station Corporate 2011 YLR 893
- MUHAMMAD PERVEZ and others Versus State 2007 SCMR 670
- Syed SAEED MUHAMMAD SHAH and anothers vs THE STATE 1993 SCMR 550
- IFTIKHAR vs THE STATE- 1986 P Cr. L J 1562
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs Raja ABDUL MUNAF and another 1986 P Cr. L J 2511
- MUHAMMAD SALEH vs ABDULLAH And Another 1986 P Cr. L J 2599
- BAHRAM KHAN vs MENTHAR And Another 1986 P Cr. L J 1971
- GHULAM NABI And Another vs THE STATE- 1986 P Cr. L J 1736
- HABIBULLAH KHAN vs MIR ALI KHAN and 2 others 1985 P Cr. L J 744