MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court whereby the bail granted to the petitioner by the trial court was cancelled. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's exercise of discretion in cancelling the bail. The Supreme Court held that it was not inclined to interfere with the well-reasoned discretionary order of the High Court, thereby dismissing the petition and refusing leave to appeal. The Court further observed that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the trial court afresh after the testimony of the eye-witnesses has been recorded.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a well-reasoned discretionary order of the High Court cancelling bail?
- Can an accused whose bail has been cancelled approach the trial court afresh after the recording of eye-witness evidence?
' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order passed by a learned Judge in Chambers in Criminal Miscellaneous No,1146/BC of 1997 dated 1-7-1997 whereby the bail granted to the petitioner by the trial Court, was cancelled.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and the complainant/caveator, we are not inclined to interfere with the well-reasoned discretionary order of the High Court cancelling bail granted to the petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
Resultantly, the interim bail granted to the petitioner by this Court on 18-8-1997, is recalled. The petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to approach the trial Court afresh after evidence of the eye- witnesses is recorded.
3. With the above observation, the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.