JALALUDDIN And 3 Others vs The STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Sind High Court dated 28-6-1984, which dismissed the bail application of the petitioners who were charged under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of one Dhalo. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail in light of alleged discrepancies regarding the venue of the crime between the F.I.R. and the Mashirnama of Wardat, as well as inconsistencies between the medical evidence and the prosecution case regarding the number of injuries. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that no grounds were made out to interfere with the concurrent orders of the courts below refusing bail. The key principle laid down is that minor discrepancies in the venue of the crime or medical inconsistencies do not automatically warrant the grant of post-arrest bail at the leave stage when lower courts have properly considered the case.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be refused under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when there are alleged discrepancies in the venue of the crime?
- Does inconsistency between medical evidence and the prosecution case regarding the number of injuries entitle an accused to bail?
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent orders of the lower courts denying bail in a murder case without strong grounds?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-- Leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and order of the Sind High Court dated ---28-6-1984 whereby bail application of the petitioners was dismissed.
2. The accused/ petitioners were charged under section 302, P.P.C. For committing the murder of Dhalo on the 14th December, 1983 at 8.30 p.m. In the Otaq of Nabi Bux Rajor. A report was lodged in the police station by the complainant Yusuf on the following day i.e on 15-12-1983 at 7.45 a.m.
Wherein all the accused/ petitioners were charged for the offence. Bail application was filed in the Sessions Court on behalf of the accused /petitioners but the same was rejected per order dated 10-4-1984 of the learned Sessions Judge, Sanghar. Thereafter the accused/ petitioners applied for bail in the Sind High Court but their application was dismissed vide the impugned judgment and order of the learned High Court.
3. The learned counsel contended that according to the F.I.R. The scene of crime was the Otaq of Nabi Bux Rajor while according to the Mashirnama of Wardat the incident took-place on some uncultivated land and the Courts below have completely failed to notice the shift of the venue of the crime to the Otaq of Muhammad Tahir later on. The learned counsel also contended that the medical evidence is inconsistent with the prosecution case regarding the number of injuries.
We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and find that there is no reason to interfere with the orders of the Courts below The petition is, consequently, dismissed.