Ch. MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs Ch. MUHAMMAD ANWAR SAMMA AND ANOTHER
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court granting pre-arrest bail to the respondent in a murder case registered under sections 148, 302, and 436 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued that the High Court erred by accepting a plea of alibi supported by affidavits from twenty-four members of the Provincial Assembly, contending that the court should not assess the veracity of such a plea at the bail stage, especially when the accused was named in the First Information Report. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion. The Court affirmed that while a plea of alibi must be tested at trial, it cannot be summarily dismissed at the bail stage if supported by substantial evidence. The Court determined that the case fell within the ambit of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as a matter requiring further inquiry. The principle established is that a plea of alibi, if supported by credible material, may constitute grounds for further inquiry under bail provisions, justifying the grant of relief pending trial.
- Can a plea of alibi be considered by the High Court for the purposes of bail before arrest?
- Does the existence of a plea of alibi supported by affidavits constitute a case requiring further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the High Court barred from considering the effect of an alibi at the bail stage if the accused is named in the First Information Report?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 436, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' ANWARUL HAQ, J.-The petitioner is aggrieved by an order made by a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 8.11-1974 allowing bail before arrest to the respondent, Ch. Mohammad Anwar Samma, r 1. P. A., in a case registered against him and several others under sections 148, 302 and 436 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 149 thereof, in connection with the murder of the respondent's cousin and brother-in-law Nabi Ahmad on the 21st of October 1974. Before the learned Judge affidavits of as many as twenty-four members of the Provincial Assembly were filed to the effect that the petitioner attended the entire session of the Provincial Assembly at Lahore on that date from 4-30 p.m. To about 6-30 p.m. With the necessary implication that he could not have been present at the place of occurrence situated within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Sadar, Gujrat. The learned Judge took the view that although the truth or otherwise of the plea of alibi had to be ascertained at the enquiry or trial, yet it could not be lightly brushed aside for the purposes of bail.
2. ' Leave to appeal is sought on the ground that the respondent having been mentioned in the first information report and a specific part having been assigned to him in the tragic occurrence, it was not the function of the High Court to accept his alibi at this stage. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on Iqbalur Rahman v. The State (1).
3. We consider that the learned Judge in the High Court has rightly remarked that the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not spell out an absolute bar in the way of the High Court considering the effect of a plea of alibi for the purposes of bail. We also find that the learned Judge has not given any decision regarding the veracity of the respondent's plea, but has merely remarked that it could not be lightly brushed aside. It will be seen that the alibi in this case comes from a large number of members of the Provincial Assembly, and accordingly it would require serious consideration at the proper time. In view of the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent, the case would appear to us to fall within the ambit of subsection (21 of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely, a case requiring further inquiry. We were informed at the Bar that the challan has not yet been submitted before any Court. It is, therefore, premature to comment upon the evidence which the prosecution intendant produce against the respondent.
4. ' Considering the peculiar circumstances, as outlined above, we are not inclined to interfere with the order made by the High Court. At the same time, we think it is clear that it will be open to the petitioner to renew his application for cancellation of bail, if so advised, when prosecution evidence, implicating the respondent, has been brought on the record.
5. ' The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Cited by 13 cases
- Dilabaz Khan vs The State and another 2023 PHC 390
- Muhammad Shafique vs The State, etc. 2017 LHC 2644
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE vs STATE, etc. PLJ 2018 Cr.C. 656
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE vs The STATE and another PLJ 2018 Cr.C. 656, 2018 YLR 323
- NASIR MAHBOOB Versus THE STATE 2004 PCRLJ 1853
- LUQMAN RAJI ADEWUNMI vs THE STATE 2005 P C R L J 248
- LUQMAN RAJI ADEWUNMI Versus State 2005 PCRLJ 248
- CH. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF SINDHU Versus THE STATE 1990 PLD 161
- MUHAMMAD USMAN vs MEER KHURSHID and others 1990 P Cr. L J 609
- MUREED vs THE STATE- Respondent 1987 P Cr. L J 1635
- MUHAMMAD ZAMAN and 3 others vs THE STATE 1985 P Cr. L J 488
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs SHAKEELUDDIN AHMED and another 1984 P Cr. L J 2161
- Ch. MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs Ch. MUHAMMAD ZAMAN AND 2 OTHERS 1985 PLD SC (A J & K) 48