BABER PERVEZ vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's bail application in a murder case. The petitioner, charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, sought bail primarily on the grounds that the evidence against him was manufactured, the judicial and police record had been lost necessitating a de novo investigation, and that a parallel investigation had been ordered, thereby invoking the provisions of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on these contentions. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court had exercised its discretion properly. The Court emphasized that the petitioner failed to provide any record to substantiate his claims regarding the lost case files or the parallel investigation. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that grounds for bail must be supported by the record and should generally be raised before the appropriate forum (the High Court) in the first instance, rather than being introduced for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal.
- Can a petitioner raise new grounds for bail in a petition for leave to appeal that were not urged before the High Court?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail solely on the allegation that the judicial or police record has been lost without supporting evidence?
- Does the existence of a parallel investigation automatically entitle an accused to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. GHULAM SAFDAR SHAH, J.-This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order of Lahore High Court dated 19-9-1977 by which the bail application of the petitioner Babar Pervaz and one Qamaruzaman were dismissed.
2. The impugned order would show that Babar Pervaz and Qamaruzzaman (Who is not an applicant in this case) are facing trial on a charge under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. In order to secure for themselves bail, however, they have been filing repeated applications in Lahore High Court which were rejected on the short ground that the merits of the case could not be gone into for the present. Dr. Khalid Ranjha, the learned counsel for Babar Pervez however, contended -that there was no evidence worth the name against the petitioner. In regard to the statement of approver against his client he contended that it was entirely manufactured. In this respect he referred to the statement of one Hujr Abdul Karim Inspector in which he had recorded the said finding. The learned counsel concedes, however, that there is nothing on the record of the case to support him in this behalf. Nor indeed had he urged the same ground in the High Court.
3. The learned counsel next argued that the judicial as well as Police record of the case has been lost and the case is being re-investigated de nova From this be argued that it would take considerable time before the trial of petitioner would commence and so he should be allowed bail. The defect, however, is that again there is nothing on the record of this case to show that the record of the case has been lost. Besides, this ground was not urged in the High Court which, alone was the, proper forum to, deal with such eventuality.
4. The learned counsel lastly argued that a parallel investigation in the case has been ordered by the authorities and this by itself would being case within the purview of section 497(2), Cr. P. C. To entitle him to grant bail. The difficulty again is that there is not ring on the record of this cue to show that this was the position. Not only this but this ground was al not taken in the High Court.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, we are satisfied that the impugned order was passed in the proper exercise of discretion in the High Court.
6. This, petition fails and is dismissed.