ABDUS SATTAR vs ABDUL GHAFOOR and another
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court granting bail to respondent No. 1, who was suspected of committing the murder of Muhammad Azam over a motive involving suspected illicit intimacy with the respondent's daughter. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the respondent where co-accused had made confessions without involving the respondent, and where the circumstance that the co-accused were employees of the respondent was insufficient to connect him to the offence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in granting bail under the circumstances, as the material on record did not sufficiently charge the respondent with the commission of the offence. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed and bail was not cancelled.
- Whether bail granted to an accused suspected of murder should be cancelled when co-accused confessions do not involve him?
- Does the mere fact that co-accused are employees of a respondent suffice to connect the respondent to a criminal offence for bail purposes?
- Under what circumstances is the Supreme Court likely to interfere with an order of the High Court granting bail?
ORDER
' SALEEM AKHTAR, J. ---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court whereby bail has been granted to respondent No,1. The petitioner in fact seeks cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent.
2. The respondent had been suspected of committing murder of Muhammad Azam and the motive was that he was suspecting that the deceased had illicit intimacy with his daughter Mst. Yasmin. It was stated that on the night of 28-2-1993 Inayat and Muhammad Sharif co-accused deceitfully picked the deceased from his house whereafter he never returned alive. On pointation of these co- accused namely Inayat and Muhammad Sharif some bones of the deceased were recovered and also his shirt and shoes.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the co-accused are employees of the respondent, but this circumstance by itself is not sufficient to charge him with the commission of the offence. Moreover, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the co-accused have made confession, but have not involved the respondent in the commission of the offence. In these circumstances, the learned Judge was justified in granting bail. Leave is refused.