GHULAM FARID vs THE STATE and another
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court whereby bail granted to him by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code was cancelled. The core legal question involved the propriety of cancelling pre-trial bail in a heinous offence involving a minor. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the High Court in cancelling the bail called for no interference, noting the serious nature of the allegations supported by medical evidence showing semen stains on swabs taken from the minor victim. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that superior courts will not interfere with the discretionary cancellation of bail by the High Court in heinous offences where tentative assessment of record prima facie connects the accused with the crime.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's order cancelling bail in a case under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Does the cancellation of bail by the High Court call for interference when supported by medical evidence connecting the accused to the crime?
- Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court by which bail granted to him by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case under section 377, P.P.C. Was cancelled.
2. The grounds for grant of bail by the Additional Sessions Judge and now urged were examined by the learned High Court and found to be untenable.
3. The complainant was a boy of 12 years of age and the petitioner, a relation, took advantage of his age and absence of his father. Swabs taken were found to be stained with semen.
4. In the circumstances, discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the High Court calls for no interference. Petition is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDUL WAHAB vs NAIM and anothers 1999 PLD Karachi 442