Pakistan Case Law
2000 SCMR 1074

BASHIR AHMED vs AMJAD ALI and 5 others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2000 SCMR 1074
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No,475-L of 1999 Criminal
Date1999-12-01
Judge(s)Sh. Riaz Ahmed arid Ch. Muhammad Arif
Authored bySh. Riaz Ahmed
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant, Bashir Ahmed, challenging the Lahore High Court's order dated 3-6-1999, which granted bail to the respondents in a criminal case registered under FIR No. 494 of 1998. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in granting bail given the circumstances of the case. The incident involved allegations of indiscriminate firing by multiple armed individuals; however, the investigation revealed that the victim sustained only a blunt weapon injury, and no firearm injuries were present. Furthermore, the investigating officer concluded that allegations of abduction and theft could not be substantiated, leading to the deletion of sections 365 and 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's discretion in granting bail was exercised in accordance with established legal principles governing bail matters. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the petition. The judgment affirms that where the prosecution's case is weakened by investigation findings, the matter falls within the scope of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the deletion of serious charges during investigation render a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with a High Court's discretionary order granting bail when it aligns with established legal principles?
  • Can bail be granted when the medical evidence contradicts the allegations of firearm usage in an FIR?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 448, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
post-arrest bailfurther inquirycriminal investigationdiscretionary powerleave to appealFIR deletion

ORDER

' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---The complainant in a criminal case, namely, Bashir Ahmed seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order, dated 3-6-1999 delivered by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondents were allowed bail.

2. The occurrence in this case had allegedly taken place on 27-9-1998 at 9-15 a.m. Inside the shop of Muhammad Sultan in the area of Hujra Shah Moqeem at a distance of 1 kilometre from the Police Station which registered the case. It may be stated here that the F.I.R. Was lodged on 28-9-1998 at 300 p.m. By the petitioner, brother-in-law of injured Muhammad Sultan, who had been caused injuries with a blunt weapon. Vide F.I.R. No,494 of 1998, 28-9-1998 the case was initially registered against the respondent under section 337-F(i)/337-F(iii)/337-H(ii)/448/382/365/148/149, P.P.C.

3. The allegations are that respondent Amjad Ali armed with rifle, Javed armed with .12 bore gun, Muhammad Arif armed with a pistol, Muhammad Ashraf armed with Kalashnikov and Sarfraz armed with pistol alongwith 14 other persons resorted to indiscriminate firing. However, the A only injury on the person of injured Sultan was caused by blunt weapon and no fire-arm injury was received by Sultan. In course of the investigation of this case the Investigating Officer also came to the conclusion that the allegations of theft and abduction after making preparation could not be susbtantiated, and thus, sections 365 and 382, P.P.C. Were deleted. On account of the deletion of the offences because Sultan had not received any injury with a fire-arm, the case was stated to be of further inquiry and accordingly the learned Single Judge admitted the respondents to bail vide order impugned.

4. We have heard the learned counsel at length and have also gone through the order impugned.

In our view the discretion exercised by the learned Judge in Chambers is in consonance with the law laid down by the superior Courts to govern the grant of bail. Hence no case for interference by this Court is made out, and thus, this petitions is dismissed.

Cited by 2 cases

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