BARKAT ALI vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 5-1-1994, which declined post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code. The High Court had refused bail on the grounds that the offense fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner was reasonably linked to the offense, there was a risk of absconding given that the petitioner was an Afghan refugee, and there were potential security risks upon release. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the discretionary order passed by the High Court and found no legal infirmity in the reasons provided for rejecting the bail plea. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal while directing the trial court to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.
- Whether an offense under section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Can the risk of abscondon of an Afghan refugee constitute a valid ground for refusing post-arrest bail?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a discretionary order of the High Court declining bail when no legal infirmity is shown?
- Section 295-C, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Judge in Chambers of the Peshawar High Court, dated 5-1-1994, declining bail to the petitioner in a case registered against him under section 295-C, P.P.C. The bail has been refused on the following grounds:-- "Whether it is section 295-C or 295-A, P.P.C. Or a mere attempt to commit such offence, in each case it falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. At this stage, the petitioner is reasonably linked with the offence. Moreover, his release is not justified on two-fold grounds one is that being an Afghan Refugee he might abscond for even to Afghanistan and the second is that after such release he might not be hurt by someone. This is over and above the fact that he is, prima facie, linked with the offence. The application is, therefore, rejected."
2. The order passed by the learned Judge in Chambers is a discretionary order and reasons given by the learned Judge for rejecting the bail plea of the petitioner do not suffer from any infirmity. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. However, keeping in view the circumstances of the case, we direct the trial Court to conclude the trial of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.