Pakistan Case LawPERVAIZ AKHTAR Versus MUHAMMAD INAYAT and 4 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which granted post-conviction bail to respondents pending their criminal appeal against a conviction under Section 435/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as adjudicated by the Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to grant bail to the respondents in light of the principles established in The State v. Syed Qaim Ali Shah (1992 SCMR 2192), which restricts such jurisdiction in specific scheduled offences. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the High Court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to grant bail in this instance, as the case did not fall within any recognized exceptions. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that findings regarding the use of explosives or mineral oil, as required by the relevant schedule, could be based on material sufficient to constitute 'proof' under Section 3 of the Evidence Act 1872. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order granting bail.
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to grant bail to a convict pending an appeal against a conviction under the Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities?
- Can findings regarding the use of explosives or mineral oil be based on material that does not strictly meet the definition of evidence under the Evidence Act 1872?
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---In this case leave to appeal order, for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent, reads as follows:--
"The petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the order of Lahore High Court dated 19-10-1992 whereby the learned Judges admitted the respondents on bail, during pendency of their criminal appeal No,227 of 1991 directed against their conviction and sentence awarded by the Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi, sentencing the respondents under section 435/34, P.P.C. The R.I. For 5 years and fine of Rs,25,000 each and in default in the payment of fine to undergo further R.I. For six months.
"In seeking leave to appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant contended before us that in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of The State v. Syed Qaim Ali Shah (1992 SCM R 2192), the High Court had no jurisdiction to admit the respondents to bail during the pendency of their appeal. The contention raised by the learned counsel requires consideration and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the same point as has been noted in the leave grant order. We having perused the judgment in the case of Syed Qaim Ali Shah found High Court jurisdiction to be barred in the cases like the present one. The present case does not fall in any one of the exceptions spelled therein. Learned counsel for the respondent/caveator has, however, contended that there was no evidence regarding the use of mineral oil in the commission of the offence which was one of the ingredients for treating the case as one falling in the schedule. There is finding by the learned trial Court that the mineral oil and/or some explosives were used in this case. Such findings are permissible on the basis of the material brought before the Court which need not fall within the four corners of the definition of evidence. It is permissible under section 3 of the Evidence Act which defines "proof." The said provisions are pari materia to the relevant provisions in the Qanoon-eShahadat also. The law in this behalf stands settled. See Muhammad Arshad v. The State (1992 SCM R 1187).
In the light of the foregoing discussion we find force in the appeal and the same is allowed the impugned order is set aside.
Cited by 2 cases
- Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs The State through Chairman, National 2019 PLD Islamabad 343, 2019 PLJ Islamabad 158, 2019 PLJ Karachi 163, 2019
- AMJAD HASSAN GURCHANI Versus SAJJAD HAIDER KHAN 2004 SCMR 12
Judges on this bench
- Muhammad Afzal Zullah3,959 judgments
- Saiduzzaman Siddiqui789 judgments
- Fazal Ilahi Khan582 judgments