Haji MUHAMMAD ABBAS vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's bail application in a criminal case registered under sections 148, 324, and 337(2)/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was initially granted bail by a Magistrate on grounds of suppressed injuries, lack of medical support for the prosecution version, and the existence of a counter-version, but this bail was subsequently cancelled by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the bail cancellation after a lapse of ten months where the petitioner sustained multiple injuries, including firearm injuries, which were omitted from the first information report, and where police mala fides were alleged regarding a counter-version. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, confirming the interim bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused sustains significant injuries that are suppressed in the FIR and there is evidence of police mala fides in handling a counter-version, the cancellation of bail by an appellate court is unwarranted and the initial discretion exercised by a magistrate should be restored.
- Whether bail granted by a magistrate can be lawfully cancelled after a considerable delay when the accused's injuries were suppressed in the first information report?
- Does the existence of a counter-version and suppressed injuries justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is police mala fide regarding the non-registration of a counter-case a relevant consideration for confirming bail?
- 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 RAFIQ 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 a 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 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 had suppressed the true facts, the learned Magistrate had 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 police 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 had acted mala fide from the very beginning In view of the above we convert this petition into an appeal and allowing it confirm the interim bail.