ABDUL SATTAR And Another vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against an order of the Lahore High Court whereby bail previously allowed to the petitioners was cancelled. A criminal case was registered against the petitioners under sections 307, 325, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly attacking the complainants with sotas, resulting in multiple injuries including fractures. The Magistrate had initially granted bail on the ground that injuries were on non-vital parts and the prosecution story was doubtful. However, the High Court set aside the bail order, holding that the Magistrate improperly exercised discretion given the active involvement and presence of armed accomplices which prevented the victim from using his firearm. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the bail granted by the Magistrate. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exercised its discretion properly and declined to interfere, affirming the cancellation of bail. The key principle laid down is that appellate or revisional courts will not interfere with the proper exercise of discretion by a High Court in cancelling bail when reasonable grounds exist to connect the accused with the crime.
- Whether the High Court is justified in cancelling bail granted by a Magistrate based on an improper exercise of discretion?
- Does the presence of armed accomplices during an assault constitute reasonable grounds to believe the accused are connected with the offense for bail purposes?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the proper exercise of discretion by the High Court in cancelling bail?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 326, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. JAVID IQBAL J.--In this petition leave is being sought against order dated 4th May 1987 passed by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court Lahore whereby bail allowed to the petitioners was cancelled.
2. Briefly the background is that a case had been registered against the petitioners under section 307/325/34, PPC on 5th November 1986 by Mushtaq Ahmad. The allegation against them was that both armed with Sotas had belabored Liaqat and his son Sharafat. According to the medical evidence Liaqat had received 9 injuries at their hands out of which two were grievous because his right leg was fractured at two places. Sharafat on the other hand had received two simple injuries.
3. Liaqat was carrying a gun which he did not use and even that was stolen by the petitioners during the occurrence. The Magistrate at Okara had allowed bail to the petitioners for the reason that the injuries were on non-vital parts of the body and because Liaqat did not use his gun, therefore the prosecution story was doubtful. The learned Single Judge after going through the record arrived at the conclusion that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners were involved in the commission of offence because at the time of the attack they were accompanied by two more persons who were armed with guns and that it was due to this reason that Liaqat could not use his own gun and that the Magistrate had not exercised his discretion properly in the case.
4. We have heard learned counsel who has attempted to argue that the offence of the. Petitioners would fall neither under section 307 nor 326 PPC but would at the most fall under section 325 PPC and therefore they were entitled to be released on bail. We have', carefully considered this argument of the learned counsel but in our view it is not a fit case for interference in the proper exercise of the discretion of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court Lahore.
Cited by 1 case
- SHAFQATULLAH KAZI Versus KARIM BUX 2001 MLD 215