MUHAMMAD DIN AND ANOTHERd vs THE STATE
These petitions arise out of orders passed by the Lahore High Court refusing to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioners who were implicated in a criminal case registered under sections 307, 342, 436, 365, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerned the propriety of refusing bail where the petitioners were specifically named in the first information report and supported by a statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether successive bail applications should be directed to the trial court or the High Court. The Supreme Court held that given the facts and circumstances, there was no ground to interfere with the High Court's order rejecting the second bail application, and that the earlier petition had become infructuous. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is specifically nominated in the first information report and corroborated by statements under section 164, bail may be rightly refused, and procedural directions given by a superior court regarding subsequent bail applications must be strictly followed.
- Whether bail should be granted when the accused is specifically mentioned in the first information report and supported by a statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's order refusing bail when there is no substantial ground for interference?
- What is the proper forum for filing a subsequent bail application when a High Court order directs liberty to move for bail after a specified period?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 436, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure
ORDER
1. ' SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-Both these petitions arise out of the orders of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court refusing to grant bail to the petitioners and they are now being disposed of under one order.
2. ' A case under section 307/342/436/365/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code was registered against the petitioners and some others on the 21st of October 1974.
3. The two petitioners have been specifically mentioned in the first information report and this is supported by the statement of another witness recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedures. In the circumstances they were rightly refused bail first, by the learned Additional Session Judge, and then by the learned Single Judge of the High Court The learned Single Judge, however, by his order dated the 20th of December 1974, observed that these petitioners could again move for bail after a month If no substantial progress was made in finalizing the investigation in the case. Out of this order arises Petition No, 6-R of 1974.
4. ' After one month the petitioners again approached the High Court for grant of bail, inter alia, on the ground that no substantial progress had been made in the investigation. The learned Single Judge observed on this application that the intention of his earlier order was that the application for bail could he repeated before the trial Court and not to the High Court. The second application was accordingly rejected by the learned Single Judge by his order dated the 21st of January 1975.
5. Petition No, 6-R of 1975 raised out of the second order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
6. ' Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated the 21st of January 1975. Petition No, 6-R of 1975 is accordingly dismissed.
7. ' Petition No, f-R of 1974 arising out of the order of the learned Single Judge dated the 20th of December 1974, has become infructuous and it is accordingly dismissed as such.