ABDUR RASHID vs MANZOOR AHMED and another
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court granting post-arrest bail to the respondent, Manzoor Ahmad, in a criminal case involving the murder of the deceased, Abdul Majid. The core legal question was whether the High Court exercised its discretion properly in granting bail, given the specific allegations against the respondent. The respondent was accused of attacking the deceased with the blunt side of a hatchet, causing a simple injury on the outer side of the left thigh, while other co-accused were alleged to have caused fatal head injuries. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no illegality or irregularity in the reasoning. The Court held that the nature of the injury attributed to the respondent—being simple and inflicted on a non-vital part of the body—justified further inquiry into his specific role and intent. The principle laid down is that where an accused's specific act is distinct from the fatal injuries caused by co-accused, and the injury attributed is simple, a case for further inquiry is established, warranting the grant of bail.
- Does the infliction of a simple injury on a non-vital part of the body by one of several co-accused warrant the grant of bail pending further inquiry?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's order granting bail if no illegality or irregularity is found in the reasoning?
ORDER
' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order passed by the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court whereby. Bail was granted to Manzoor Ahmad, respondent No, 1.
2. According to the F.I.R. Due to altercation which had taken place ten to twelve days before the incident between Muhammad Anwar son of deceased Abdul Majid and Muhammad Riaz son of Muhammad Yaqoob. The accused, namely, Muhammad Ramzan armed with Bala, Abdul Ghafoor armed with Bala, Manzoor Ahmad armed with hatchet and Muhammad Yaqoob armed with Sota attacked the deceased and caused injuries to him on the head and leg. After one day the deceased expired in the hospital. According to the F.I.R. As Muhammad Ramzan caught hold of the handle of the cycle of the deceased and when he was getting down, Ramzan attacked with Bala which hit the deceased on his head. Abdul Ghafoor also attacked with Bala on the left side of the deceased's head. The deceased fell down upon which Manzoor Ahmad, respondent No, 1 attacked him from the blunt side of the hatchet hitting the deceased on the outer side of the left thigh. This injury attributed to respondent No, 2 was declared simple in nature. The learned Judge taking into consideration that the solitary injury on the outer side of left thigh and its nature suggest that he had refrained from using the sharp side and did not choose any vital part of the body of the de- eased. The fact that the injury was caused on the outer part of the body after the deceased had fallen down, it required further inquiry as to whether the injury in question was the result of a direct blow from the blunt side of the hatchet or it was due to fall.
' We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the reasoning of the impugned order. We, therefore refuse to grant leave.