SARFRAZ vs THE STATE
This matter arose from a petition seeking leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was initially granted bail by an Additional Sessions Judge on the grounds of being declared innocent in successive police investigations and because the firearm injury attributed to him was on a non-vital part of a witness's body. However, the case was subsequently transferred to the Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, who cancelled the petitioner's bail. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to consider that the case prima facie appeared triable by an ordinary court rather than a Special Court, as well as the petitioner's exoneration during successive police investigations. Finding these points to require further consideration, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and admitted the petitioner to interim bail.
- Whether leave to appeal against a High Court order refusing bail should be granted where the case was prima facie triable by an ordinary court but transferred to a Special Court?
- Whether the High Court erred in refusing bail without considering the accused's declaration of innocence in successive police investigations?
- Can interim bail be granted by the Supreme Court upon granting leave to appeal when jurisdictional and factual matters require further consideration?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the order of a learned Judge in chambers of the Lahore High Court dated 28-8-1994 wherein the learned Judge refused to admit the petitioner to bail in a case registered against him along with several others under sections 302/324/148/149 of the P.P.C.
2. In seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was initially granted bail in the case by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, by his order dated 21-2-1994 on the ground that the petitioner was found innocent in the successive police investigating besides the fact that the injury from the fire-arm attributed to the petitioner was suffered by one of the P. Ws. Which was on the non-vital part of the body. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the offence with which the petitioner was charged was treble by an ordinary Court but curiously enough this case was taken up by Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Faisalabad, on the application of the complainant and bail granted to the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad was cancelled by order dated 6-6-1994.
The learned Judge in Chambers refused to grant bail to the petitioner when he approached the Lahore High Court.
3. Notice was issued to the State in the above case and the learned counsel for the State was unable to satisfy us as to how this case which prima facie appears to be tribal by an ordinary Court was transferred to the Court of Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Faisalabad. The learned Judge in Chambers while refusing to admit the petitioner to bail did not consider the above circumstance besides the fact that the petitioner was found innocent in successive police investigations conducted in the case. These facts require further consideration and we accordingly grant leave .To appeal. In the meantime the petitioner is admitted to interim bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.