Pakistan Case Law
1976 SCMR 391

FAZAL MUHAMMAD vs ALI AHMAD AND 3 Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1976 SCMR 391
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3508/B of 1975 Petition for Special
Date1976-01-19
Judge(s)Salahuddin Ahmed, Muhammad Afzal Cheema, Muhammad Akram and Dorab Patel
Authored bySalahuddin Ahmed
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

Criminal petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging an order of a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court that granted bail to three accused-respondents in a case registered under Sections 302, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued that bail should not have been granted because the accused were nominated in the First Information Report with specific overt acts, including a fatal blow to the deceased's head. The High Court had admitted the respondents to bail on grounds of a counter-version arising from the same incident, wherein process was issued against the complainant party, the occurrence took place at the respondent's well, a plea of private defence was raised, and some accused sustained injuries, including a grievous head injury. The Supreme Court held that interference with the High Court's discretionary order was not warranted under the facts and circumstances of the case, and dismissed the petition, observing that the petitioner remained at liberty to seek cancellation if the privilege of bail was misused.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the existence of a plausible counter-version and injuries sustained by the accused party justify the grant of bail in a murder case?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court's discretionary order granting bail where a plea of self-defence and a counter-case are under trial?
  • Can a complainant seek cancellation of bail before the High Court if the accused misuses the concession of bail granted by it?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
bailmurdercounter versionplea of private defencegrievous injurycross caseinterference with bail order

ORDER

1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioner vas been aggrieved by at; order of a learned Singe Judge of the Lahore High Court releasing the three accused-respondents on bail in a case registered against them on the 4th of Jane 1974, under section 302/147/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code.

2. It appears that the occurrence took place at the well of respondent Ali Ahmad and the accused persons took up a plea of right of private defence and alleged that some of them, too, had been injured as a result of the incident They also lodged a complaint against the complainant party of the present case.

3. Eventually a challan was submitted against persons including the said three respondents, and thereupon commitment proceedings started against them. Several witnesses have already been examined in the proceedings. The recent amendment in the low has cut short the proceedings and the accused now await trial in the Sessions Court.

4. Of the 8 accused persons all except the three respondents had been released on bail earlier by the High Court. Subsequently respondents Murid Hussain and Niaz Hussain applied for bail before the High Court but were refused by Javed Iqbal, J, of the High Court. Still later all the three respondents applied for bail and the same learned Single Judge of the High Court granted them bail on the ground that there was "prima facie probability that the counter version has also some truth in it'', and that in the counter-case process had been served on the complainant party. Furthermore that some of the accused had received injuries including a grievous injury on the head of one of them.

5. On behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that the respondents should never have been granted bail as they were mentioned in the first information report and overt acts were attributed to them including the allegation that respondent Ali Ahmad had struck on the head of the deceased with a seta.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case we do not think this is a fit case to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

7. However, if the accused-respondents or any of them misuse the privilege of bail the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the High Court for cancelling the bail.

Cited by 31 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.