KHUSHI MUHAMMAD_ vs SHADA AND Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the private complainant against the order of the High Court of Lahore which granted bail to respondents charged with murder and attempt to commit murder. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the High Court's order granting bail in a heinous criminal case involving serious offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court held that the order passed by the High Court was erroneous and called for interference, especially as the operation of the bail order had already been suspended upon the grant of leave to appeal. Although the appellant sought to withdraw the appeal due to a compromise between the parties, the court rejected the withdrawal, directed the State to prosecute the appeal, and accepted the concession of the respondents' counsel. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's bail order, reaffirming the principles regarding the cancellation of improperly granted bail.
- Can an appellant withdraw an appeal after leave to appeal has been granted?
- What is the effect of the State taking over the prosecution of an appeal when a private appellant fails to proceed?
- Whether the Supreme Court can set aside a High Court bail order upon concession by the respondents' counsel?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUD ALI, C. J.-Leave to appeal was obtained by Khushi Muhammad, private complainant, against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Lahore, dated 8th April 1974, allowing bait to respondents 1 to 8 who are charged with offences under sections 302, 307 read with sections 149 and 148, P. P. C. While granting leave to appeal the operation of the order passed by the High Court was suspended.
2. On 2nd December 1975, Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on---Record for the appellant moved an application for permission to withdraw the appeal as the parties appeared to have reached a compromise and consequent upon it the appellant had failed to take necessary steps for completion of record. The application for withdrawal was rejected on 6th February 1976 and the appeal was set down for hearing on 10-2-1976. The Assistant Advocate-General who put.
3. Appearance for the State was directed to prosecute the appeal in place of Khushi Muhammad, at the hearing of the appeal.
4. Mr. Maqbool Elahi, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 8 conceded that the appeal be allowed and the order passed by the High Court granting bail to his clients be set aside. He brought to our notice that since leave to appeal was granted, the eye-witnesses who had supported the prosecution case had resiled from their earlier statements and he intends to apply for bail to the Sessions Judge on the basis of this later development. We are not concerned with the reasons which have motivated the learned counsel for res--pondents 1 to 8 to concede the appeal. The Court had already formed a prim facie view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court was erroneous and called for interference. That is why the operation of the order granting bail to the respondents was suspended when leave to appeal was granted.
5. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court.