MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN alias MUHAMMADA vs THE STATE and another
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioner by an Additional Sessions Judge in a case involving an offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court had cancelled the bail primarily because the petitioner possessed a motive for the crime and had been an absconder prior to his arrest. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that no effective firing was attributed to him and disputed his status as an absconder, claiming no formal proclamation had been issued. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the petitioner's failure to surrender despite being aware of the allegations and his associates' involvement justified treating him as a proclaimed offender for bail purposes, even in the absence of technical compliance with proclamation requirements. The Court concluded that the High Court's exercise of discretion was sound and refused to interfere, thereby dismissing the petition for leave to appeal.
- Can a court treat an accused as a proclaimed offender for bail purposes even without the technical satisfaction of the requirements of a formal proclamation?
- Does the failure of an accused to surrender despite knowledge of allegations justify the cancellation of bail?
- Is the High Court's discretion to cancel bail based on the accused's status as an absconder and the existence of motive subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner charged alongwith others of offence under section 302, P.P.C.
Seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 24-5-1993 whereby the bail granted to him by the Additional Sessions Judge was cancelled.
2. Mr. RA. Awan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that effective firing was not attributed to him and that the High Court was in error in taking him to be an absconder.
3. The reasons which prevailed with the High Court in cancelling the bail were the following two:-- "(i) It appears that learned A.S.J. Did not apply his mind and failed to take into account, that it was Muhammad Hussain alias Muhammada (respondent) who had grievance and motive for commission of the occurrence.
' Yet another aspect, which learned A.S.J. Conveniently had foregone, was that Muhammad Hussain alias Muhammada (respondent) had been declared absconder prior to his arrest. He was arrested after having been declared absconder."
4. The learned counsel contended that there was no evidence or material to show that any proclamation had issued and the petitioner had in fact become absconder.
5. The fact that the petitioner did not surrender though his close associates were charged for the crime alongwith him and he was in the know of the allegations against him, justified the High Court, without technical satisfaction of the requirements of a proclamation, to consider him a proclaimed offender for the purposes of and in the matter of bail. The discretion exercised by the High Court does not call for our interference. Hence, leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- RAJADA Versus State 2005 PCRLJ 570