M.A. AZIZ KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AHMED KHAN And Other
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent. The dispute arose from civil litigation regarding a house, leading to an F.I.R. involving allegations of trespass, confinement, and ouster. The respondent had been granted pre-arrest bail in June 1985, and subsequent applications for cancellation were unsuccessful. When additional offences were added to the case, the Sessions Judge granted further pre-arrest bail, a decision the High Court refused to interfere with. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted that the initial grant of pre-arrest bail was not under challenge. The Court held that the extension of pre-arrest bail to cover newly added offences, following a supplementary statement by the complainant, did not present any substantial question of law warranting interference. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the lower court's decision to maintain the bail status.
- Does the addition of new offences to an existing F.I.R. automatically necessitate the cancellation of pre-arrest bail previously granted?
- Is the Supreme Court required to interfere with a High Court order refusing to cancel pre-arrest bail when no substantial question of law is involved?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 440, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 441, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioners seeks leave to appeal against the order passed by the Lahore High Court on 3-3-1986 dismissing an application of the petitioner for cancellation of pre- arrest bail of respondent No. 1.
2. The parties are closely related. They had a civil litigation pending in respect of a house in Satellite Town, Sargodha. An F.I.R. Was lodged on the 17th of April, 1985 at 8.15 p.m. Complaining of trespass, confinement and ouster from a portion of this disputed property of the family of the petitioner. A report was lodged under sections 148, 149, 440/354, 452/342, P.P.C. On 1-5-1985 was added in a supplementary statement offences under section 379/All, P.P.C. It appears that earlier the respondent No. 1 had been granted bail before arrest on 1-6-1985 and an effort of the petitioner to get it cancelled had failed in the High Court on 22-9-1985. Subsequently, when offence under section 441, P.P.C. Was added another application was made seeking bail before arrest in respect of it as well. This was granted on 30-1-1986 by the Sessions Judge and the High Court refused to interfere with it dismissing in limine the petition filed by the petitioner on 3-3-1986.
3. Mr. Talib H . Rizvi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that in view of the serious offences committed by the respondent and the subsequent addition of offence under section.
4. 379/411, P . P. C . He was not entitled to pre-arrest bail.
5. We have gone through the record and find that the respondent was admitted to bail before arrest as early as 1-6-1985. Those proceedings or that order is not in issue. It was on subsequent statement of the complainant that other offences were added and the benefit of bail before arrest was extended to these offences also. We do not find that there is any question of law involved which may require our attention and leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.