MAQBOOL AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM And Another
This appeal challenged an order by a learned single Judge of the Sind High Court, which granted post-arrest bail to the respondent, Muhammad Akram, in a case involving a murderous assault under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The respondent had initially been granted bail by an Additional Sessions Judge, but that bail was subsequently cancelled due to allegations that the injuries were inflicted on a vital part of the body and that the accused had threatened witnesses. The High Court, upon revision, set aside the cancellation order, reasoning that the identity of the victim and the intent behind the assault required further inquiry, and finding insufficient evidence regarding the alleged threats to witnesses. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the High Court's interference with the cancellation order was justified. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had not violated any principles governing the grant of bail, finding no valid justification to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion. The appeal was dismissed.
- Is the High Court justified in setting aside an order of an Additional Sessions Judge cancelling bail when the evidence regarding the accused's intent and alleged threats to witnesses is inconclusive?
- Does the alleged infliction of injuries on a vital part of the body automatically preclude the grant of bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with a High Court's order granting bail?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This appeal is directed against the order of a learned single Judge of Sind High Court dated 7-8-1983 releasing Muhammad Akram respondent on bail pending trial of a case under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code against him. Respondent is said to have made murderous assault on Maqbool Ahmed appellant herein, on 27-11-1982 in which connection first information report was lodged against him at Quaidabad Police Station, Karachi, on the same day at 9.45 p.m. Respondent was granted ad interim pre-arrest bail on 13-12-1982 but it was not confirmed by the Sessions Judge on 14-2-1983 and he was arrested. However, soon thereafter on 17-2-1983, the Additional Sessions Judge granted him bail under section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, but again on the application by the State; he cancelled it by the order dated 14-6-1983 on the ground that the injuries inflicted on the victim were caused on a vital part of the body, and moreover the accused had abused the concession of bail granted to him, in that, he had issued threats to the complainant and his witnesses.
2. Respondent filed a revision application in Sind High Court against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and the learned single Judge in the High Court on reappraisal of all the facts and circumstances of the case took the view that since "it is alleged that Abdul Rashid, and not the complainant Maqbool Ahmed, was assaulted on his venturing intervention, it is, therefore, the matter for further enquiry as to whether the applicant (respondent) had the intention of making murderous assault on the complainant. As regards other ground of threats to the witnesses there does not seem any definite evidence that the applicant (respondent) had issued threats to the witnesses and thereby abused concession of bail". For these reasons, learned Judge set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and directed respondent's release on bail.
3. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court in order to consider whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the order of the Additional Sessions Judge cancelling bail.
4. After having gone through the record of the case in the light of the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, including learned Additional Advocate-General, who fully supports the order of the High Court, we find that on the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court had not violated any provision or principle of law governing grant of bail and there is no valid justification for this Court to interfere. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.