GUL KHAN And 2 Others vs The STATE
This matter arises from a conflict of opinion in the High Court regarding the interpretation of the fourth proviso of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The learned Single Judge in the current bail application did not follow the view previously expressed by another Single Judge of the same court in a reported judgment. The core legal question concerns the correct interpretation and application of the said statutory proviso governing bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal in order to resolve the existing judicial conflict regarding the interpretation of the provision. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal to resolve conflicting interpretations of statutory provisions among High Court benches.
- How should the fourth proviso of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be interpreted when conflicting views exist in the High Court?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal to resolve a conflict of opinion within the High Court?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--There is a conflict of opinion in the High Court as to the interpretation of the fourth proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned Single Judge while deciding Bail ApplicationNo. 297 of 1986 out of which this petition has arisen, has not accepted the view expressed by another learned Single Judge in the case reported as Rahim Bux and others v. The State PLD 1986 Kar. 224. Accordingly we would grant leave to appeal to resolve this conflict.
2. The appeal shall be made ready for hearing in September, 1986, if possible.