MUHAMMAD YOUSIF vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, a police constable, challenging the order of the High Court which dismissed his post-arrest bail application. The petitioner was arrested on 4-7-1995 under an F.I.R. registered at Police Station A Section Kandhkot for allegedly using his service-rifle to cause the death of two persons and injuries to another. The core legal question was whether the gravity of the offense and the misuse of a service-rifle by a law enforcement official constitute valid grounds to deny bail under the exceptions to the third proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court of Pakistan converted the petition into an appeal and held that while the act of the petitioner was highly condemnable, the reasons advanced by the High Court did not legally bring the case within the statutory exceptions to the third proviso. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order and admitted the petitioner to bail, laying down the principle that judicial discretion to deny bail under the statutory delay exceptions must be strictly governed by the provisions of the law rather than moral condemnation of the crime's attendant circumstances.
- Whether the misuse of a service-rifle by a police official takes the case out of the purview of the third proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be denied under the exceptions to the third proviso of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based solely on the condemnation of the manner in which the crime was committed?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The petitioner, who was a police constable, was arrested on 4-7-1995 in connection with F.I.R. Which had been lodged at Police Station "A" Section Kandhkot. It was alleged that he had used his service-rifle to cause death of Azhar Ali and Khuda Buksh and injuries to Ghulam Farid. The petitioner filed his bail application before the High Court invoking the third proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. However, the learned Judge took the serious view of the matter as the service-rifle given to the petitioner was meant for protection of citizens rather than commission of a crime. Consequently, the bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as the High Court held that the case of the petitioner fell within the exceptions.
2. Although, we agree with the observations made by the learned Judge in the High Court that the act of the petitioner was condemnable, but we are unable to agree with the finding that the case of the petitioner fell within the exceptions. No doubt, the circumstances of the case in which bail is sought by the petitioner can be considered to arrive at a conclusion that his case falls within the exceptions to the third proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C., but in our view, the learned Judge in the High Court failed to consider that the reasons stated by him for declining bail to the petitioner cannot take the case out of the purview of the third proviso.
3. In the result, the petition is coverted into an appeal and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,3,00,000 (three lacs) with one surety to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Cited by 5 cases
- Sarfraz alias Faraz and others vs The State and others 2024 SHC 396, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 934
- KHALID vs The STATE 2014 P Cr. L J 437
- NABIDAD and 2 others vs THE STATE 2012 MLD 593
- AHMAD YAR Versus THE STATE 2002 YLR 1045
- NAZEER AHMED and 2 others vs THE STATE 2003 MLD 1591