FAIZ MUHAMMAD vs GUL KHAN AND Other
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Peshawar High Court which cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioner by an Additional Sessions Judge in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in cancelling bail when the petitioner was directly charged in the First Information Report with causing a firearm injury, despite the petitioner's argument regarding the improbability of his participation due to alleged enmity between him and his co-accused. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion. The Court reasoned that the complainant directly attributed the injury to the petitioner in a broad-daylight occurrence, and there was no evidence suggesting the complainant had a motive to falsely implicate the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is directly charged with a serious offence punishable by imprisonment for life, and there is no apparent reason for false implication, the court is justified in refusing bail, as the case does not warrant further inquiry at the bail stage.
- Whether the High Court is justified in cancelling bail when an accused is directly charged with a serious offence in the First Information Report?
- Does the existence of enmity between co-accused parties automatically render the complainant's allegation of joint participation improbable for the purpose of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when there is no evidence of enmity between the complainant and the accused to suggest false implication?
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against an order made by a learned Judge of the Peshawar High Court on the 19th of September, 1978, whereby bail granted to him by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nowshera, in a pending murder case was cancelled.
2. In the First Information Report made by the injured person Salamat Khan on the 15th of March, 1978, the fire-arm injury sustained by the complainant was attributed to the petitioner, although it was alleged that his co-accused, namely, Baland Khan and his son Momin Khan were also present at the spot. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed bail on the ground that in a case previously registered by the police it was alleged that there was enmity between the petitioner and his co-accused Baland Khan, and that there had been, in fact, firing between the parties, and, therefore, it was not probable that the petitioner could have joined Baland Khan and his son for attacking the complainant Salamat Khan. This view has not, however, appealed to the learned Judge in the High Court, who has observed that the petitioner was directly charged by Salamat Khan for effective firing, and hence not entitled to bail.
3. The main ground urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that although the petitioner is named as the person who had injured the complainant by a fire shot, yet the learned Judge in the High Court was in error in not taking note of the improbability of the story narrated by the complainant in view of the previous incident between the petitioner and his co-accused. The learned counsel submits that in the circumstances it was clearly a case for further inquiry.
4. We regret, we do not see any substance in these submissions. Whatever be the state of feelings between the petitioner and his co-accused, the fact remains that in a broad-day occurrence the complainant Salamat Khan received a fire-arm injury on his thigh, and be attributed it to the present petitioner. There is no indication on the record as to why the complainant should falsely substitute the present petitioner for the real assailant, and no suggestion of enmity between the petitioner and the complainant has been put forward at this stage. As a result the learned Judge in the High Court was right in taking note of the fact that on the allegations made against the petitioner he was prima facie guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life and, accordingly, not entitled to bail.
5. As a result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.