BACHAL AND 6 Others vs The STATE
This matter arises from an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the cancellation of pre-trial bail granted to the appellants, who were challaned under Section 395 and Section 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core allegation was that the appellants, being haris, forcibly took away cotton pods from land under the receivership of the Mukhtiarkar. The appellants were initially granted bail by a Magistrate, but the Sessions Court cancelled the bail, and the High Court dismissed the subsequent bail application. The Supreme Court considered whether the bail granted by the Magistrate was rightly cancelled in a case where the offences charged are not punishable with death or transportation for life. Holding that the Magistrate was fully justified in granting bail for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and Sessions Court and restored the bail granted to the appellants, laying down the principle that bail should normally not be withheld or arbitrarily cancelled in non- prohibitory offences.
- Whether bail can be cancelled when the offence charged is not punishable with death or transportation for life?
- Was the Magistrate justified in granting bail to the appellants charged under Sections 395 and 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Did the High Court and Sessions Court err in cancelling the bail granted by the Magistrate?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The appellants have been challaned in a case under section 395/382, P.
2. P. C. The allegation against them is that they are the haris on the land and as they were not delivering zamindari share of produce, the Mukhtiarkar, Tando Allahyar, was appointed as Receiver of the land. The Mukhtiarkar had appointed the first informant Ali as karao on the 6th September 1972, to look after the land. It was alleged by the karao in the F. I. R. That at about 5 p.m. On the 21st September 1972, the appellants came armed with hatchets and lathis and forcibly took away 70 maunds of cotton pods worth Rs.3,300 lying in the khara under his receivership.
3. The appellants applied for bail before arrest which was dismissed right up to the High Court.
4. Thereafter the appellants approached the Civil Judge and First Class Magistrate, Tando Allahyar and were granted bail on the 26th October 1972. The matter was taken to the Sessions Court for cancellation of the bail. The appeal was allowed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, by order dated the 11th January 1973, and cancelled the bail of the appellants. The matter was then taken to High Court in Bail Application No. 65 of 1973, which was dismissed by order dated the 7th February 1973. The appellants have challenged the said order of the High Court in appeal before us.
5. It is not disputed that the offence with which the appellants, are charged is not punishable with death or transportation for life. In these circumstances, the learned Civil Judge and First Class Magistrate, Tando Allahyar was perfectly justified in granting bail to the appellants. Mr. Usman-i- Ghani, learned Assistant Advocate-General has contended that the appellants are charged -with serious offence and it is not a fit case for grant of bail. The contention of the learned Assistant Advocate-General has not impressed us. We would, therefore, accept the appeal and direct that appellants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs GULAB and 3 others 2001 YLR 2918
- ABDUL GHAFOOR and 5 others vs THE STATE 1990 P Cr. L J 1565