SHABBIR HUSSAIN and others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's order refusing bail to the petitioners in a criminal case involving charges under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the circumstances of the occurrence, the specific allegations in the First Information Report, and the alleged misappreciation of medical evidence by the High Court regarding the number of injuries sustained by the deceased. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's refusal of bail was justified. The Court found that the contention regarding the alleged roping in of an entire family lacked prima facie evidence, and that the High Court's assessment of the overall features of the case, rather than just the medical evidence, was sound. Consequently, the petition for bail was dismissed, affirming the principle that bail is not a matter of right when the overall circumstances of the case, as considered by the High Court, do not support it.
- Does the mere allegation that an entire family has been roped into a criminal case constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail?
- Is the High Court's assessment of the overall features of a criminal case sufficient to sustain a refusal of bail, even if there is a dispute regarding the interpretation of medical evidence?
- Can a petition for bail be granted when the petitioners fail to provide prima facie evidence to support their claims of innocence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13-D, Arms Ordinance 1965
ORDER
' S.A. NUSRAT, J.--The petitioners applied for bail to the High Court in a case under sections 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. And section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance. Their earlier application for the grant of bail was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 28-7-1987.
2. The occurrence in the case had taken place on 18-5-1987 at sunrise time and the report was lodged by Mashooq Ali on the same date at Police Station Shandarkot, situate at a distance of 8 miles from the place of occurrence. The complaint mentioned the names of all the seven petitioners and the other two co-accused (who have not applied for bail) namely More and Rab Nawaz. The F.I.R. Also mentions that the petitioners were armed variously with firearms namely either guns or rifles. One Laldino, cousin of Mashooq Ali complainant was killed as a result of firing in the occurrence. Besides reiterating all that was urged before the High Court, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that from the number of persons involved in the case, it appears that an attempt was made to rope in the entire family. The learned counsel was unable to point out the relationship of the petitioners inter se and hence prima facie the contention has no force.
It was next contended that the learned High Court had found that the injuries sustained by the deceased could the the result of one or two fires and in that while making reference to the number of injuries the surgical wounds were also taken into consideration.. The observations of the learned High Court in appreciating the number of injuries, therefore, are not correct. But this factor alone was not the basis for rejecting the application for bail. The overall features of the case were considered by the learned High Court and in the circumstances the order passed in the case is unexceptionable. The petition merits no consideration and is dismissed accordingly.