LIAQAT vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioner by a First Class Magistrate and upheld by the District and Sessions Judge, Swat. The petitioner was accused of attempting to commit zina. The core legal question was whether the High Court exercised its discretion properly in cancelling the bail that had been granted based on the prima facie weakness of the allegations. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court failed to exercise its discretion properly or reasonably in setting aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the bail, directing the appellant to be released upon furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts should not interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion regarding bail unless such discretion was exercised improperly or unreasonably by the lower courts.
- Does the High Court have the authority to cancel bail granted by a lower court?
- Under what circumstances should an appellate court interfere with an order granting bail?
- Is the prima facie weakness of an allegation a valid ground for maintaining a bail order?
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The petitioner was allowed bail by a First Class Magistrate at Swat. The State moved for cancellation of the said order but this prayer was rejected by the District and Sessions Judge, Swat. The State then moved the High Court at Peshawar for cancellation of bail which prayer was granted and the bail allowed to the petitioner was cancelled and he was ordered to be delivered to the custody of the police. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the aforementioned order of the High Court.
2. ' Notice was issued to the Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. And he, as also the learned counsel for the petitioner, have been heard.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he attempted to commit zina on Mst. Gohar Jan but this allegation prima facie was not very convincing and for this reason the learned Magistrate allowed him bail and this concession was maintained by the learned District and Sessions Judge.
4. The High Court, while setting aside these orders, does not, in our view, appear to have exercised its discretion properly or reasonably. Its order, therefore, requires interference.
5. ' This petition is, accordingly, converted into an appeal and allowed. The appellant shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,10,000 with one surety in the like amount ,to the satisfaction of the trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.