HAYAT vs SADA AND ANOTHERs
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the High Court of West Pakistan, which declined to cancel the bail previously granted to the respondent by the Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, in a pending murder case. The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts exercised their discretion arbitrarily in granting bail to the respondent, an elderly individual aged 60 to 65, whose alleged involvement was limited to raising a lalkara before the attack on the deceased. The Supreme Court held that it would not interfere with the discretion exercised by the courts below, as the determination of whether the respondent's alleged actions constituted the offence of abetment was a matter to be resolved during the trial. The Court affirmed that the lower courts had not acted arbitrarily in granting bail. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court will not interfere with the discretion exercised by lower courts in bail matters unless such discretion is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.
- Does the act of raising a lalkara necessarily constitute the offence of abetment in a murder case?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion exercised by lower courts in granting bail?
- Is age a relevant factor for the court to consider when exercising discretion in bail matters?
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.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD ASGHAR KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE- 1986 PLD Sh. C (A J & K) 5
- SHAH NAWAZ vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs 1975 P Cr. L J 1173