MUHAMMAD USMAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court refusing them post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 148, 325, and 307 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein they were specifically alleged to have fired at and injured the complainant with pistol shots, causing three firearm injuries. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised its judicial discretion in denying bail, particularly in the presence of a counter-version of the occurrence in another first information report. The Supreme Court held that the discretion exercised by the High Court was based on sound judicial principles and remained unaffected merely by the existence of a counter-version lodged by a co-accused. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for bail.
- Whether the existence of a counter-version in a first information report obligates the court to grant post-arrest bail?
- Does the refusal of bail by the High Court based on specific firearm allegations warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioners have been aggrieved - by the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court refusing to grant bail to them in a case registered against them under sections 148,, 325, 307/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code on the 12th of October, 1974.
2. ' The allegations against the petitioners are that they fired at and Injured complainant Azizur Rabman with pistol shots. The complainant sustained three fire-arm injuries.
3. The discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge is based on sound judicial principle, and no fault can be found with it.
4. ' Merely because there was a counter version of the occurrence in the first information report lodged by one of the accused, Mohammad Afzal, does not in our opinion affect the discretion exercised by the learned Judge on the basis of the materials on record of the present case.
5. ' We accordingly dismiss the petition.
Cited by 5 cases
- Muhammad Rafique vs The State, etc 2022 SCP 182, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 981, 2022 PLD Supreme Court 694, PLJ 2022 SC
- Babar Hussain vs The State and another 2022 YLR 1488
- ISHTIAQ AHMED Versus State 2017 PCrLJN 251
- MOZAL AND 11 Others vs THE STATE 1983 P Cr. L J 64
- FALAK NIAZ Versus SHERDIL AND 3 OTHERS 1988 PCRLJ 1038