AMANULLAH And 2 Others vs The STATE
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Baluchistan, which had cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioners by the Sessions Judge, Sibi. The core legal question involved the propriety of the bail cancellation in the context of pending trial proceedings and the availability of a key eyewitness. During the hearing, the Assistant Advocate General informed the Court that the sole eyewitness, Yar Muhammad, had not yet been examined in the trial under Section 302/307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The State proposed that the trial be expedited to record this witness's testimony. Consequently, the petitioners' counsel did not press the petitions. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions as not pressed, directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings and record the testimony of the eyewitness within one month. The Court held that upon the recording of this evidence, the petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh bail application before the trial court, which must decide the matter on its merits, uninfluenced by the High Court's previous cancellation order.
- Can an accused file a fresh bail application after the recording of key prosecution evidence?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to direct the trial court to expedite the recording of a specific witness's evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.---These two petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the common order of the learned Chief Justice of Baluchistan High Court, dated 16th May, 1990, whereby the bail granted to the petitioners by the learned Sessions Judge, Sibi, was cancelled.
2. At the hearing of these petitions the learned AA.-G. Pointed out that in this case the sole eye- witness is one Yar Muhammad who has not been so far examined. According to him the trial of the petitioners' alongwith other co-accused under section 302/307/34, P.P.C. Is in progress and the said eye-witness can be examined on the next date of hearing. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the next hearing in the case has been fixed on 26th August, 19X). Learned A.A.-G. States that the date of hearing can be entedated and the said eye-witness Yar Muhammad can be examined. Under the circumstances he submits that it will be appropriate for the accused to apply for bail afresh before the trial Court after the recording of the evidence of the said eye- witness.
3. On our inquiry learned A.A.-G. Has undertaken that the hearing of the case can be antedated and the said witness examined within one month.
4. In view of this statement of the learned AA.-G. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not press these petitions.
5. Accordingly these petitions are dismissed as not pressed. We, however, direct that the hearing of the trial be fixed within one month and the evidence of witness Yar Muhammad be recorded within that time. It will then be open to the petitioners to apply afresh for their release on bail before the trial Court, which will consider their application in the light of the evidence and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in the orders previously passed by the High Court.
Cited by 5 cases
- Ayaz Ali Versus State 2026 PCrLJ 921
- Khayal Bacha vs Ijaz Hussain and another 2024 YLR 2147
- GHULAM RASOOL Versus The State 2005 PCRLJ 397
- KANIZ FATIMA Versus SHAUKAT HUSSAIN 1996 PCRLJ 1996
- Khayal Bacha son of Habib vs Ijaz Hussain son of Muhammad Hussain and another 2024 F.S.C 18