HAYAT vs SADA AND Another
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court of West Pakistan, which declined to cancel the pre-trial bail granted to the respondent by the Sessions Judge in a pending murder case. The core legal question was whether the lower courts exercised their discretion arbitrarily in granting bail to an accused whose only attributed role was raising a lalkara and who was aged between 60 and 65 years. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the discretion exercised by the lower courts was not arbitrary, noting that the exact legal effect and nature of the act attributed to the respondent—specifically whether it constitutes abetment—must be determined during the trial. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that bail granted on such grounds does not warrant interference by the apex court at the pre-trial stage.
- Whether bail granted to an accused on the ground of old age and the attribution of a lalkara can be cancelled by the Supreme Court?
- Does raising a lalkara conclusively constitute abetment at the bail stage or is it a matter to be determined at trial?
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, whereby he refused to cancel the bail of the respondent No. 1 which was granted to him by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, in a pending murder case. The reasons given by the Sessions Judge and accepted by the learned Single Judge are that the respondent is an old man of 60 to 65 years of age and the only part ascribed to him was that he raised a lalkara before his co-accused attacked the deceased.
2. We are not persuaded to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Courts below in the matter of the respondent's bail. The question would be determined at the trial as to whether the action of the respondent as attributed to him, constitutes an offence of abetment, that is to say, whether he did raise a lalkara and if so, to what effect.
3. It cannot be said that the Courts below have acted arbitrarily in granting bail to the respondent in the exercise of their discretion. The petition is dismissed.