Dr. BEHRAM KHAN vs NASIR AHMAD BACHA And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Baluchistan High Court, which had dismissed an application filed by the petitioner under subsection (5) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner sought the cancellation of bail previously granted by the Sessions Judge, Quetta, to the respondent, who was facing trial for offences under section 302 and section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the facts and circumstances of the case warranted the cancellation of bail in light of established precedents regarding the evaluation of prosecution evidence, specifically eye-witness accounts and circumstantial evidence. Upon consideration, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the case required further examination of the principles governing bail cancellation as articulated in prior Supreme Court judgments. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and ordered the transfer of the case file to Lahore for an expedited hearing, acknowledging the legitimacy of the request for an early resolution of the matter.
- Does the presence of eye-witnesses and circumstantial evidence necessitate the cancellation of bail under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the Supreme Court transfer the venue of a pending appeal for an expedited hearing upon the request of counsel?
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the order of Baluchistan High Court, dated 19-8-1985 rejecting petitioner's application under subsection (5) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail granted by the Sessions Judge, Quetta to Nasir Ahmed Bacha respondent 1 pending his trial in the case against him under section 302/109, P.P.C.
2. The prosecution case against the respondent has support of several eye-witnesses, and the circumstantial evidence. The question for consideration, inter alia, is whether the facts and the circumstances of this case attracted the principles indicated by this Court in Arbab Ali v. Khamiso and others 1985 SCMR 195; Ibrahim v. Hayat Gul and others 1985 SCMR 382 and Muhammad Sadiq v. Sadiq and others PLD 1985 SC 182. We, therefore, grant leave .To appeal and allow the petition.
3. Since in the normal course this appeal will be heard in Quetta some time in 1986, both the learned counsel pray that it may be fixed at an early date at Rawalpindi or at Lahore, preferably at Lahore on 11-11-1985. The request being legitimate is granted. The file of the case shall be transferred to Lahore for hearing there on 11-11-1985.