AKRAM KHAN vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Peshawar High Court granting bail to the respondent in a case involving Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the High Court erred by granting bail based on a plea of alibi, citing precedent suggesting such pleas should be reserved for trial. The Supreme Court observed that while earlier jurisprudence suggested alibi pleas should be left for trial, subsequent rulings established that each case must be decided on its own merits, as no universal rule can be applied. In the present case, the High Court had exercised its discretion by considering official documentation from the respondent's military unit confirming his duty status at the time of the occurrence. Finding no evidence that the High Court's order was unreasonable, perverse, or an improper exercise of discretion, the Supreme Court upheld the decision. The Court affirmed that bail decisions involving alibi pleas are fact-specific and do not require a uniform rule of exclusion.
- Can a plea of alibi be considered by the High Court when deciding on a bail application?
- Is there a universal rule requiring that a plea of alibi must always be left for the trial court to decide?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's exercise of discretion in granting bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. GHULAM SAFDAR SHAH, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of Chief Justice of Peshawar High Court, dated 13-11-1977, by which in a case under section 302, P. P. C. Bail was allowed by him to respondent Anwar Shah.
2. Maulvi Sirajul Haq, the learned counsel for petitioner, argued that the learned Chief Justice had granted bail to respondent on his plea of alibi which according to him was illegal. In support of his contention he relied on the judgment of this Court in the cast of Iqbalur Rehman v. The State (PLD1974SC83).
3. It is true that in the judgment cited by the learned counsel the view taken was that the plea of alibi, by which the High Court was influenced In granting bail to accused in that case, should have been left for the decision of the trial Court. But in a subsequent cast of Ch. Muhammad Shaft v. Ch. Muhammad Anwar Samma and another (1975SCMR219) a different view was taken. And consequently the bail granting order of the High Court on the plea of alibi of the accused was not interfered with. By reading ere said two judgments, it is clear that each case, in which a plea of that has been taken, by accused, has to be dealt with on its own merits, as it would se impossible to lay down a rule of thumb to be followed in all casts.
4. Now the learned Chief Justice, while granting bail to respondent Anwar Shah in this case, took into account a certificate issued to Anwar Shah from his Unit as well as the Unit Register (as he is employed in Defence Forces) that at the tine of occurrence he was on duty at Peshawar Cantonment. The learned Chief Justice has, however, not commented upon the merit of the said certificate a granted bail to Anwar Shah saying that under the circumstances, it would be just and proper.
5. On our part we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Maulvi Sirajul Haq, the learned counsel was unable to say that the order in question was unreasonable or perverse or was not passed by the learned Chief Justice in the exercise of proper discretion.
6. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.
Cited by 8 cases
- ABDUL KAREEM alias KAREEM BUX and 4 others Versus THE STATE 2005 PCRLJ 17
- ABDUL JABBAR vs THE STATE 1991 P Cr. L J 2004
- MUHAMMAD USMAN vs MEER KHURSHID and others 1990 P Cr. L J 609
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs THE STATE 1990 P Cr. L J 765
- SHAH GULZAM and another vs THE STATE 1989 P Cr. L J 2395
- MUREED vs THE STATE- Respondent 1987 P Cr. L J 1635
- SAKHI SULTAN vs THE STATE- 1986 P Cr. L J 117
- Molvi ABDUL AZIZ and anothers vs THE STATE 1989 P Cr. L J 1566