RIAZ HUSSAIN SHAH vs PEHLWAN SHAH And Another
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby post-arrest bail was granted to Respondent No. 1. The brief facts are that the deceased was attacked by the respondent and his co-accused, resulting in fatal injuries. The respondent was specifically attributed an ineffective fire shot and was noted to be a juvenile of about fifteen to sixteen years of age. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court exercised its discretion properly in granting bail based on the attribution of an ineffective role and the tender age of the accused. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's discretion was exercised soundly and without reliance on irrelevant considerations or violation of established principles regarding the grant of bail. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the attribution of an ineffective role coupled with the tender age of the accused constitutes valid grounds for the grant of bail, and appellate interference is unwarranted unless discretion is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily.
- Whether the attribution of an ineffective fire is a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Does the tender age of an accused constitute a relevant consideration in the grant of bail?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion exercised by a High Court in granting bail?
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. NAIMUDDIN, J.--Petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 25-4-1990 whereby bail was granted to Respondent No. 1, Pehlwan Shah.
2. The facts briefly stated are that on 2-11-1989 at about Degarwela in the area of village Shamasabad when Gulzar Shah, deceased, was grazing his goats in the land, Pehlwan Shah armed with carbine and his two co-accused Imtiaz Hussain Shah and Tasleem Hussain Shah, armed with hatchets attacked him. Pehlwan Shah is said to have fired an ineffective shot. Imtiaz Hussain Shah gave him two hatchet blows on the head followed by Tasleem Hussain Shah, who also gave him two hatchet blows in the chest region. Gulzar Shah was grievously injured, but he walked down to his house and did not lodge the report till 11-11-1989. On this date he died in his house and the matter was reported to police by his maternal-uncle.
3. The motive for the crime was that a year before the occurrence the deceased accompanied by certain accused caused injuries to the cousin of the accused/respondent and other co-accused and a case under section 325, P.P.C. Was pending against him and his companions.
4. Although bail application was filed on behalf of the respondent and above-named two accused but it was pressed only on behalf of the respondent. The learned Judge in Chamber granted the bail to the respondent on consideration that the respondent No. 1 has been attributed ineffective fire and he is a boy of hardly 15/16 years of age. In granting bail on the above considerations, we find that the learned Judge has not exercised his discretion arbitrarily on irrelevant consideration or exercised it against any well-settled principles for grant of bails.
5. We, therefore, find no merits in this petition and accordingly dismiss it.