Pakistan Case Law
1977 SCMR 449

MANSHA KHAN AND 2 Others vs The STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1977 SCMR 449
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1977 Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1243/B of 1977 P.
Date1977-06-08
Judge(s)Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Haleem
Authored byMuhammad Haleem
ResultAppeal allowed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a criminal petition converted into an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the refusal of post-arrest bail to the appellants under section 325 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerned the proper exercise of judicial discretion in granting bail for a non-bailable offence carrying a sentence of up to seven years' rigorous imprisonment, specifically whether bail should be denied solely due to the number and nature of injuries received by the victim. The Supreme Court held that since the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause restricting bail, and absent any strong opposing reasons, the courts below erred in refusing bail merely based on the severity of the injuries. The Court laid down the principle that bail in such non-bailable offences should not be withheld purely as a punitive measure or based solely on the injury count without considering the statutory prohibition limits and the facts of the case, thereby allowing the appeal and granting post-arrest bail to the appellants upon furnishing suitable security bonds.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether bail should be refused in an offence under section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code merely due to the number of injuries suffered by the victim?
  • Does an offence punishable with seven years' rigorous imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause where bail is ordinarily refused?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 437, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
post-arrest bailnon-bailable offencejudicial discretiongrievous hurtcriminal appeal

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we decided to convert this petition into an appeal and to dispose it of as such.

2. A case was registered at 7 p.m. On 8-3-1977 at Police Station Sohawa, District Jhelum, against the appellants under section 325, P. P. C. Read with section 34 for having caused sots blows to Lal Hussain on 4-3-1977 as a result of which he suffered as many as 16 injuries out of which three were grievous, in the area of Dhok Mirza about seven miles from the Police Static.

3. The appellants were arrested on 16-3-1977. They moved the Sessions Judge for bail but the application was rejected solely on the considera--petition of the nature of the injuries received by Lal Hussain. The motive alleged was that Zulfiqar, a sort-in-law of injured Lal Hussain was suspected of having illicit intimacy with the sister of appellant Mansha Khan and since he proceeded to England, as he feared an attack on his life, the appellants avenged their grievance by causing injuries to Lal Hussain. It cannot be denied that Mansha Khan was an aggrieved person but that could not be a factor to absolve him from his culpability. However, it will be a consideration while considering the question of bail.

4. An offence under section 325, P. P. C. Is punishable with seven years' rigorous imprisonment and is not one of those in which bail is refused by reason of the prohibition contained in section 437, Cr. P.

5. C. Therefore bail should not be refused merely because the offence is non-Bailable. The learned Assistant Advocate-General opposed the bail on the same consideration on which the Courts below have not exercised their discretion. However, in the absence of any strong reason to refuse bail, we feel that the Courts below have not properly exercised their discretion in refusing bail on the basis of the number of injuries suffered by Lal Hussain. Accordingly, we would allow bail to the appellants. They are directed to furnish bond in the sum of RA. 5,000 with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illqa Magistrate.

6. Accordingly the appeal is allowed.

Cited by 16 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.