Pakistan Case Law
1986 SCMR 1834

ATTAULLAH KHAN vs JAWAID HAIDER KAZMI And 2 Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1986 SCMR 1834
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 40-K of 1986
Date1986-08-24
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah, S. A. Nusrat and Ali Hussain Qazilbash
Authored byMuhammad Afzal Zullah
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondents by the Sind High Court in a case registered under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in granting pre-arrest bail to the respondents, thereby warranting interference by the apex court. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order of the High Court did not suffer from any legal infirmity or justification for interference, and consequently dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the discretionary grant of pre-arrest bail by a high court unless a clear legal infirmity or lack of justification is demonstrated.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the grant of anticipatory bail by the High Court under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code without a showing of legal infirmity?
  • Can a complainant successfully seek cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted by the High Court if no legal infirmity is established?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
anticipatory bailbail cancellationleave to appealcriminal procedureattempt to murder

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from order dated 13-4-1986 of the Sind High Court whereby anticipatory bail was allowed to respondents Nos.1 and 2 in a 307, P.P.C. Case. The petitioner who is the complainant in the case seeks cancellation of the bail.

2. After hearing the petitioner who is an Advocate in person and respondent No. l who is also an Advocate, we are satisfied that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise.

3. No justification has been made out for grant of leave to appeal.

4. This petition accordingly, is dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.