KARAM DIN vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND 2 OTHERS
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the High Court's refusal to cancel the bail granted to the respondents in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in declining to cancel bail where the complainant alleged fresh grounds, despite prior investigating agencies having found the respondents innocent and placed them in column 2 of the police report. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the complainant had failed to establish sufficient grounds for cancellation, particularly as a previous order refusing to cancel bail for one of the respondents remained unchallenged and the alleged new grounds had already been considered. The Court emphasized that in the absence of compelling new evidence or circumstances, the discretion exercised by the High Court in refusing to cancel bail would not be interfered with. The petition was dismissed, with a directive for the expeditious conclusion of the pending inquiry proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the finding of innocence by investigating agencies constitute a valid ground for maintaining bail?
- Can a court cancel bail based on grounds that were previously considered and rejected in an earlier, unchallenged order?
- Is the Supreme Court required to interfere with a High Court order refusing to cancel bail when no fresh grounds are established?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Chapter XVIII, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J. -The petitioner is a complainant, and he has challenged the legality and propriety of the order refusing to cancel bail granted to respondents Muhammad Ashraf and Haji Niamat All in a case registered against them and four other persons under section 302/307/148/ 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code in July, 1972.
2. ' Although the challan was submitted in September 1972 the inquiry proceeding is still pending and has not yet concluded.
3. It appears that previous to the submission of challan against them no less than four investigating agencies were of opinion that the respondents were innocent, and their names were accordingly put in column 2 of the report submitted under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Niamat All was granted bail before arrest by the Additional Sessions Judge on the 11th of Febuary, 1974. Subsequently Muhammad Ashraf was enlarged on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the 25th o March 1974.
5. ' By an order dated the 8th of April 1974, the complainant's application for cancellation of bail granted to Niamat Ali and two others was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court.
6. This order was not challenged before the Supreme Court.
7. ' The complainant thereafter moved the High Court for cancellation of bail granted to Niamat Ali and Muhammad Ashraf. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner conceded before the High Court that no fresh ground existed for cancelling the bail granted to Muhammad Ashraf earlier. It was, however, contended that so far as Niamat Ali was concerned a fresh ground came into existence. The High Court found that the alleged ground, namely, absence of deficiency of eye sight had been noticed in the earlier order dated the 8th of April 1974. Besides, the aforesaid order dated the 8th of April 1974 had remained unchallenged.
8. ' Another co-accused Bagh Ali was also found innocent by the investigating agencies, and he was granted bail and nobody asked for cancellation of his bail.
9. ' The learned counsel appearing for the State did not support the petitioner's application for cancellation of bail.
10. ' On the date the High Court passed the impugned order only three out of sixteen witnesses had been examined and the end of the inquiry was not in sight.
11. ' In these circumstances we are unable to find fault with the order of the High Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
12. ' We, however, direct that if the inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not yet concluded it should be done so expeditiously and a report to that effect sent to this Court.
Cited by 6 cases
- SULTAN MAHMOOD Versus MANSOOR SHAMSI 2015 PCrLJ 90
- LIAQAT ALI Versus THE STATE 1994 PLD 172
- IQBAL AHMAD and 2 others vs THE STATE 1989 P Cr. L J 2122
- NOOR DIN vs THE STATE and 2 others 1985 MLD 713
- SAEED AHMAD vs The STATE 1981 SCMR 565
- MEHR DIN AND Another vs THE STATE 1979 PLD Lahore 505