IJAZ AHMAD vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the cancellation of pre-arrest bail by the Lahore High Court in a murder case registered under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner challenged the cancellation on three grounds: his name was absent from the First Information Report; the High Court lacked jurisdiction to cancel bail granted under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898; and the deceased's death resulted from pneumonia rather than the injuries sustained. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the identity of the accused was sufficiently established by the deceased's dying statement, and that the cause of death is a matter for trial determination, noting the relevance of the second explanation to section 299 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Crucially, the Court affirmed that the High Court possesses inherent revisional jurisdiction under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to cancel bail orders passed by subordinate criminal courts. The petition was dismissed as the arguments lacked merit at the bail stage.
- Does the High Court have the power to cancel bail granted by a Sessions Judge under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the identity of an accused established by a dying statement sufficient for the purpose of deciding a bail application?
- Can the High Court exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to review orders of subordinate criminal courts?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 299, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.--The petitioner was granted bail before arrest by the learned Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi , in a case pending against him under section 302/34, P. P. C. For causing the death of one Qasim Mahmood. The bail was, however, cancelled by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court by his order dated 25-4-1973.
2. It is submitted that the High Court has overlooked the fact that the petitioner's name was not mentioned at all in the first information report as being one of the assailants, and that in any case the learned Sessions Judge, having acted under section 498, Cr. P. C., the High Court had no power to cancel the bail. Finally, it is submitted that the injury sustained by the deceased was not the direct cause of his death, which was due to pneumonia brought on by prolonged confinement in bed.
3. There is no merit in these submissions. In the first information report the petitioner was referred to by the name of Massi, and in the dying state--ment made by the deceased it was made clear that the reference was to the present petitioner. It is not for this Court, nor was it for the High Court at this stage, to embark upon an elaborate enquiry in this regard. It is sufficient for the purpose of deciding the question of bail that the identity of the petitioner was reasonably ascertained from the statement made by the deceased person before his death.
4. As regards the contention that the death was not caused by the injuries sustained by the deceased but by pneumonia, suffice it to say that the learned counsel has overlooked the second explanation to section 299 of the Pakistan Penal Code. In any case, this is again a question which can be determined only at the trial in the light of the medical evidence and the surrounding circumstances of the case.
5. The contention that the High Court had no power to cancel the bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge under section 498, C,-. P. C., is clearly misconceived, for the High Court has ample power, under section 439 of the Code, to revise _Any order passed by a subordinate criminal Court.
6. The petition, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs SHAUKAT AND 2 OTHERSs 1979 P Cr. L J 244