NAWAB KHAN Alias NABI And Others vs The STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by several petitioners seeking suspension of their sentences pending appeal against their convictions in a criminal case involving a capital charge. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the accused persons were entitled to bail pending the final adjudication of their appeal, given the specific nature of the injuries attributed to them in the prosecution evidence. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Court held that while the petitioners convicted of causing grievous injuries were not entitled to bail, those whose specific involvement in such injuries was not established or was limited to simple injuries were entitled to relief. The Court established the principle that in cases of multiple accused, the entitlement to bail pending appeal is contingent upon the specific role and the nature of the injuries attributed to each individual accused in the prosecution's case, rather than a blanket application of the conviction status. Consequently, the Court rejected bail for those attributed with grievous injuries and granted bail to the remaining petitioners subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Are all co-accused in a capital case equally disentitled to bail pending appeal regardless of their individual roles?
- Does the attribution of grievous injuries to specific accused persons preclude them from being granted bail pending appeal?
- Can an accused person be granted bail pending appeal if the prosecution evidence only attributes simple injuries to them?
ORDER
ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.--We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the State. It is admitted on behalf of the petitioners that in the prosecution evidence only Nawab Khan, Rahim Khan and Muhammad Aslam have been attributed injuries to the deceased. The rest of the accused are, therefore, entitled to bail as this Court has granted leave to appeal to re-examine their liability. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail as the petitioners stand convicted on a capital charge.
2.After considering the argument of the learned counsel we find that out of the eight injured persons besides the deceased, five persons from the prosecution side had received one or more grievous injuries. These persons are Sher Baz P.W.14, Mir Baz P.W.11, Ghulam Haider (not produced)
Fazal Hussain P.W.13 and Rehm Noor (not produced).
3. From the judgment of the High Court we find that the aforesaid five persons from the complainant side received injuries at the hands of one or more of the four accused, namely, Fazal Dad, Taj Muhammad Akhtar, Tariq Mahmood Akhtar and Atta Hussain. As grievous injuries are attributed to these accused in our opinion, they are not entitled to bail. Khalid Mahmood Akhtar has been attributed simple injuries with a blunt weapon to Mst. Karam Noor.
4. In the result the application for bail in regard to accused Tariq Mahmood Akhtar, Taj Mahmood Akhtar, Fazal Dad and Atta Hussain is rejected. The remaining accused, namely, Allah Dad, Muhammad Dilawar Khalid Mahmood, Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Riaz and Ghulam Muhammad are granted bail. Their sentences shall stand suspended and they shall be released on furnishing P.R. Bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000 with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Chakwal.
Cited by 1 case
- HAYAT And Another vs THE STATE 1989 MLD 651