ABDUS SATTAR vs MUHAMMAD YAQUB AND Another
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court confirming pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1 in a murder case where he was alleged to have caught hold of the deceased while another inflicted a fatal blow. The core legal question is whether pre-arrest bail was properly confirmed by the High Court given the petitioner's presence in the F.I.R. The Supreme Court held that since the accused has been challaned and the matter is pending before the Committing Magistrate, the appropriate remedy is for the petitioner to move the lower court for reconsideration or cancellation of bail based on the record. The Court clarified that the High Court's bail order does not bar such an application. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that trial or committing courts can independently consider bail cancellation or modification once the case reaches them, notwithstanding a prior High Court order.
- Can a petitioner move the Committing Court for reconsideration of bail after the High Court has confirmed pre-arrest bail?
- Does the confirmation of pre-arrest bail by the High Court act as a bar to a subsequent application for bail cancellation before the Committing Magistrate or Sessions Court?
ORDER
1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court confirming bail before arrest granted to Muhammad Yaqub respondent No. 1, in a case relating to the murder of Mohammad Ashraf. The allegation against Mohammad Yaqub is that Ali Mohammad raised a lalkara, whereupon respondent Mohammad Yaqub caught hold of Mohammad Ashraf deceased and Rashid gave a fatal blow to Mohammad Ashraf in the chest area who fell down and died on the spot. The respondent No. 1, therefore, is alleged to be privy and accessory to murder.
2. A learned Single Judge of the West Pakistan High Court, Lahore, granted him interim bail which has been confirmed by M. H. Munir, J. On the 25th February 1970. The petitioner's case is that the name of the respondent is mentioned in the F. I. R. And on the allegation made against him he should not have been granted bail.
3. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 1 has been challaned and the matter now is before the Committing Magistrate. The proper course, therefore, for the petitioner is to move Committing Court for reconsideration of the question whether respondent No. 1 should be allowed to be continued on bail after taking into consideration the material placed on the record. The apprehension of the petitioner that the grant of bail by the High Court will be a bar to the said consideration is not well founded. The bail granted by the High Court will not stand in the way of the petitioner to move for the cancellation of the bail before the Committing Magistrate or before the Sessions Court.
4. At this stage, we are not inclined to interfere in this matter. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MANZOOR AHMAD BHATTI vs THE STATE 1985 P Cr. L J 1558