Haji MUHAMMAD ABBAS and others vs THE STATE
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's bail application in a criminal case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the cancellation of bail, previously granted by a Magistrate, was justified given the circumstances of the case, specifically the existence of a counter-version and the suppression of injuries sustained by the petitioner in the First Information Report. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner had sustained seven injuries, including two firearm injuries, which were entirely omitted from the prosecution's initial report. Furthermore, the Court noted the police's mala fide conduct, evidenced by the Station House Officer's false statement regarding the registration of a cross-case. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and confirmed the petitioner's interim bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that where the prosecution suppresses material facts, such as the injuries of an accused, and acts with mala fide intent, the cancellation of bail is unwarranted, and the accused is entitled to relief.
- Does the suppression of an accused's injuries in the First Information Report justify the grant of bail?
- Can bail be cancelled when the police act with mala fide intent regarding the registration of a counter-case?
- Is the existence of a counter-version a relevant factor in determining the propriety of bail cancellation?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' MUHAMMAD RAFIAQ TARAR, J.---Haji Muhammad Abbas petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 23-4-1994 whereby his bail petition in case under sections 148, 324 and 337(2)/149 of the P.P.C. Was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was allowed bail by the learned Magistrate on 26-4-1993 on the ground that the prosecution version was not supported by the medical evidence, the injuries of the petitioner herein were suppressed in the F.I.R., a case under section 324/392 of the P.P.C. Was registered against the complainant party and it was by a case of counter-version. However, on an application moved by the complainant, the bail was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 28-2-1994.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the police in collusion with the complainant party has suppressed the true facts, the learned Magistrate / has exercised his discretion in a proper manner and there was absolutely no justification for cancellation of his bail 10 months later.
The learned State Counsel has, however, opposed the prayer for bail.
4. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties. The medico-legal report of the petitioner shows that he had 7 injuries in all out of which two were by fire-arm. These injuries do not find any mention in the F.I.R. He was admitted in the hospital on 13-4- 1993 and was discharged on 26-4-1993. He filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking direction for the registration of a case based on his version on which S.H.O. Of the concerned Mice Station was summoned. He appeared on 16-5-1993 and stated that "a case has been registered pursuant to the complaint of the petitioner " Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that actually no case was registered against the complainant party and the S.H.O. Had made an incorrect statement which lends support to the view that the police, has acted mala fide from the very beginning. In view of the above we convert this petition into an appeal and allowing it confirms the interim bail.