Pakistan Case LawFAZAL AHMED Versus THE STATE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the High Court's order cancelling his post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, along with a co-accused, had initially been granted bail by a Magistrate, but the Additional Sessions Judge subsequently cancelled the petitioner's bail while maintaining the co-accused's bail, citing the serious nature of the injuries inflicted on the complainant. The High Court upheld this cancellation. The Supreme Court examined whether the lower courts' discretionary decision to deny bail was legally infirm. The Court held that the determination of bail for an undertrial prisoner falls within the discretionary jurisdiction of the lower courts. Finding that the lower courts had provided proper reasons based on the gravity of the injuries and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in those findings, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order. The petition was dismissed, with a directive for the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
- Is the grant or refusal of bail to an undertrial prisoner a matter within the discretionary jurisdiction of the courts?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a bail cancellation order if the petitioner fails to demonstrate legal infirmity in the lower court's reasoning?
- Does the infliction of serious injuries justify the cancellation of bail for an accused charged under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
ORDER
NASIM HASAN SHAH, C.J.---The petitioner alongwith another (Sajid son of Fazal Ahmed) is being tried for inflicting Churri blows to Fazalur Rehman complainant under section 324/34, P.P.C. Both had applied for bail during the pendency of the trial which was granted by a learned Magistrate on 16-9-1993. However, on the application of the complainant the bail of the petitioner (Fazal Ahmad) was cancelled while that of his co-accused namely Sajid was maintained. Fazal Ahmad thereupon moved the High Court for reversal of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge but the High Court vide its well-reasoned order dated 12-2-1994 held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail and dismissed his application. Hence this petition for leave to, appeal.
2.We have heard Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, Advocate. The question whether an undertrial prisoner is entitled to bail or not is in the discretionary jurisdiction of the Courts below. The learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court after giving proper reasons have found that the petitioner is not entitled to bail, on account of the serious injuries inflicted by him on the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to show that the finding of the learned Court just mentioned, suffered from any legal infirmity. No ground for interference with such an order is, therefore, warranted. However, we feel that this is a case in which the trial of the accused should be expedited and we direct accordingly.
3.This petition with the above observations stands dismissed.
Judges on this bench
- Nasim Hasan Shah3,148 judgments
- Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry1,248 judgments
- Saiduzzaman Siddiqui789 judgments