MAJOR (Retd.) AURANGZEB vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Major (Retd.) Aurangzeb against the refusal of the Appellate Bench of the Lahore High Court to suspend his sentence of imprisonment after he was convicted for contempt of court by a learned Single Judge and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment. The core legal question concerns the propriety of suspending a sentence of imprisonment and granting interim bail pending the disposal of an appeal against a contempt conviction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the grant or refusal of interim bail is a matter of judicial discretion for the High Court, and the apex court will not interfere unless the discretion is exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or in disregard of patent facts, which was not the case here, especially when the High Court had expedited the hearing of the main appeal. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court is reluctant to interfere with the High Court's discretionary refusal to suspend a sentence or grant interim bail pending appeal unless clear perversity or arbitrariness is demonstrated.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's refusal to suspend a sentence and grant interim bail pending appeal in a contempt matter?
- Is the grant or refusal of interim bail considered a matter within the judicial discretion of the High Court?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion regarding interim bail?
- Article 204, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Section 4, Contempt of Court Act
1. ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-The petitioner. Maj. (Red.) Aurangzeb, D. I. G. Of Police, Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir (now confined in Kot Lakhpat Jail. Lahore), was convicted by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide judgment dated the 24th of September 1977, for contempt under Article 204 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months the maximum punishment provided by the law. The Appellate Bench has directed that the appeal be heard within a month, but has refused to suspend the sentence of imprisonment. The petitioner now seeks leave to appal against this part of the order.
2. At this stage, we do not think it advisable to go into the merits of the case against the petitioner, as any observations we might make one way or the other might prejudice the disposal of the appeal which is pending in the High Court. We think it will suffice to say that the learned Single lode, who has recorded the conviction against the petitioner, has examined at some length the material brought on the record before coming to conclusions on the factual aspects of the case. Prima facie, the conclusions do not appear to be improbable or perverse, but a detailed appraisal of the evidence has to be carried out by the Appellate Bench, and we should not pre-empt that function while dealing with the present limited question of interim bail.
3. We further find that the grant or refusal of interim bail is essentially a matter within the discretion of the High Court, and we would be reluctant to interfere with the same unless it is shown that the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, or in disregard of the patent facts of the case. None of these factors appear to be present here.
4. We also take note of the fact that the learned Judges of the High Court have already made a direction that the appeal be heard within one month. We hope that this direction will be complied with.
Cited by 3 cases
- THE STATE vs MAHBOOB ALI 1989 P Cr. L J 1951
- MOHIB RAZIQ vs SHAH MUHAMMAD AND Another 1983 SCMR 1130
- AIJAZ ALI vs THE STATE P.L.D. 1981 Karachi 484