IMTIAZ ULLAH vs RAM AHMAD AND OTHERS
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the High Court granting bail to the respondents who were charged under Section 363 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether bail granted by the High Court should be set aside in light of the subsequent recovery of the petitioner's son, who allegedly corroborated the abduction and forced labour. The Supreme Court held that the grounds upon which the High Court granted bail continued to hold good despite the appearance of the complainant's son, and that the grant of bail does not reflect on the innocence or guilt of the accused, which must be determined on the merits of the prosecution evidence. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the interlocutory grant of bail does not prejudice the ultimate trial.
- Whether the subsequent recovery of an abducted person warrants the cancellation of bail previously granted to the accused?
- Does the grant of bail by a superior court reflect upon the innocence or guilt of the accused?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion of the High Court in granting bail?
- Section 363, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.- The High Court has granted bail to the respondents who are charged under section 363, P. P. C. It is contended by Mr. Arif that the young son of the petitioner has since been recovered who has supported the complaint made by his father that respondent No, I bad abducted him and given him to kharkars who subjected him to forced labour for over two years.
2. The grounds on which bail has been granted by the High Court continue to hold good notwithstandin the appearance of thecomplainant's son. Nor will grant of bail reflect on the question innocence or guilt of the respondents as the decision of the case willeventually depend upon the merits of the evidence led by the prosecution.
3. ' Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.