MAZHAR MEHMOOD vs BASIR And Another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which granted bail to the respondent, Basit, in a criminal case involving charges under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the respondent, acting with others, caused injuries to the complainant. The High Court had granted bail primarily because the police investigation found the respondent innocent and placed his name in Column No. 2 of the challan, and because he had not caused any injury to the deceased. The Supreme Court, in its order, declined to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion. The Court emphasized that it functions primarily as a Constitutional Court and does not routinely review bail orders unless compelling reasons exist. Furthermore, the Court noted that the considerations for cancelling bail are distinct from those for granting it. Finding no sufficient grounds to disturb the High Court's order, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Does the Supreme Court routinely interfere with bail orders granted by the High Court?
- Are the considerations for cancelling bail identical to those for granting bail?
- Is a police finding of innocence in the challan binding upon the Court in bail proceedings?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-Y(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.-Mazhar Mahmood. Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 23-7-1995 of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, granting bail to Basit respondent No. 1 in case under section 302/324/34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Airport, Rawalpindi, vide F.I.R. No. 192 dated 6-10-1994.
2. According to prosecution, the petitioner alongwith Tariq and Basharat, in furtherance of their common intention, caused the death of Muhammad Waheed and injuries to Mazhar Mahmood petitioner on 6-10-1994 at 7.00 a.m. At Suzuki Stand Dhok Hafiz. Tariq fired shot at Muhammad Waheed hitting his left ear. Basharat gave Sarya blow on the head of Waheed. Basit caused simple fire:arm injury on the left leg of the complainant/petitioner.
3. The High Court has granted bail to Basit respondent on the grounds that he having been found innocent during investigation, his name was placed in Column No.2 of the challan and that he had not caused any injury to the deceased.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the finding of the police with regard to the innocence of the respondent was not binding on the Court, more particularly, when there was no material in support thereof.
5. We have considered the matter carefully. This Court is primarily a Constitutional Court and not expected to go into matters concerning grant of bail by the High Court unless there are compelling reasons to do so. Furthermore, considerations for cancellation of by a Court of competent jurisdiction are different from considerations for granting bail to an accused person. Once the F(iii)
PPC. As the injury has been caused by a bullet fired by rifle which penetrated through and through and caused an exit wound of the denomination of 5 cm x 3cm, the appellant is sentenced to 3 years' R.I. As Tazir with Daman amounting to Rs. 10.000/- or in case of default of payment of Daman, he will be dealt in the manner as prescribed by section 337-Y (ii) PPC. Since sentence of years' R.I.
And imposition Daman for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is not a severer punishment and learned counsel for the appellant had in fact conceded to the same, therefore, no notice is deemed necessary to be given to the appellant. The appeal is partly allowed in terms of the alteration in the conviction and sentence of the appellant as indicated above Cr. Revision No. 405/94 fails and is hereby dismissed.