MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's bail application on the ground that no new ground had been agitated that was not available in the earlier application. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner under sections 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with the allegation that he had forged a power of attorney. The Supreme Court heard the learned counsel and held that it was not a fit case for interference in the discretion exercised by the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The key principle affirmed is that appellate interference with the discretionary refusal of bail by the High Court, particularly regarding successive bail applications lacking new grounds, is unwarranted unless proper justification is shown.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's discretion in dismissing a successive bail application lacking new grounds?
- Can a bail application be dismissed on the ground that no new ground has been agitated since the rejection of an earlier application?
- Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 21st May, 1989 whereby bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that no new ground had been agitated which was not available to the petitioner in the earlier application. The earlier application of the petitioner was dismissed by the same learned Judge on 17th December, 1988.
2. ' A case was registered against the petitioner under sections 419, 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. On 11th August, 1988. The allegation against him is that he had forged the power of attorney of Mst. Fazal Bibi and thus he was prima facie involved in the offence of preparation of the forged power of attorney.
3. We have heard learned counsel and in our view it is not a fit case for interference in the discretion exercised by the learned Judge. The petition is therefore, dismissed.