MUHAMMAD AZIZ vs Haji KAMAL KHAN and others
This matter concerns a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed against an order of the High Court granting bail to the respondent, Haji Kamal Khan, who was charged under sections 302, 337-ADF, 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner challenged the grant of bail, arguing that the High Court erred in its application of the concept of 'further inquiry' under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court correctly applied the criteria for bail in non-bailable offences, specifically whether 'further inquiry' can be invoked despite the presence of incriminating material, and whether the medical evidence regarding the cause of death was improperly ignored. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court misconstrued the provisions of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and failed to adhere to established judicial precedents regarding the safe administration of criminal justice in cases involving serious offences and conflicting or ignored medical evidence.
- Can the concept of further inquiry be invoked for bail when sufficient incriminating material connecting the accused to the offence exists?
- Is bail on the basis of further inquiry permissible without satisfying the conditions of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a court ignore medical evidence that is supported by ocular testimony without assigning reasons in a bail order?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-ADF, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
JAVED IQBAL, J.---This criminal petition for leave to appeal has been preferred on behalf of Muhammad Aziz (petitioner) whereby order dated 21-5-2001 has been assailed granting bail in favour of Haji Kamal Khan against whom a case was got registered under sections 302, 337-ADF, 147 and 149. P.P.C. By one Abdul Basit by means of F.I.R. No,9 of 2001 dated 26-1-2001 alleging therein that the respondent alongwith other co-accused persons duly armed with knives and Dandas visited his shop, and launched murderous assault and resultantly Han Abdul Hayee and Muhamamd Aziz sustained injuries and subsequently Haji Abdul Hayee expired on 15-3-2001 at Quetta.
2. After having heard Mr. M. Zafar learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner at length we are inclined to grant leave to appeal to consider the following:-
(i) Whether the concept of further inquiry can be pressed into service where sufficient incriminating material connecting the accused/respondent with the commission of alleged offence has come on record by ignoring the dictum as laid down in case titled Bashiran Bibi v. Nisar Ahmad Khan PLD 1990 SC 83 and Arbab Ali v. Khamiso and others 1985 SCM R 195?
(ii) Whether bail on the basis of further inquiry can be granted without fulfilling other conditions of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C, when accused is not entitled to get this concession in view of the law as laid down in Asmat Uilah Khan v. Bazi Khan PLD 1988 SC 621, Shah Zaman v. State PLD 1994 SC 65, Arbab Ali v. Khamiso 1985 SCM R 195 and Muhammad Sadiq v. Sadiq PLD 1985 SC 182 "Unless it is held that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that accused had committed a non-bailable offence" Mst. Rahman Jan v. Abdur Rehman 1991 SCM R 1849)?
(iii) Whether the provisions as contained in section 497(2) have been misconstrued, misinterpreted, wrongly applied or the impugned order is contrary to the principles laid down by this Court as well as those governing the safe administration of criminal justice?
(iv) Whether the medical report indicating in a categorical manner that "the deceased died of acute Heart Attack, caused by Bone Marro Embolism which is a common sequelae in such hurt i.e, fracture of neck of left femur (grievous hurt)," could have been ignored though confirmatory in nature yet supported by ocular evidence without assigning any reason by the learned High Court.
3. The appeal arising out of this petition may be fixed at the earliest after having approval of his Lordship the Honourable Chief Justice.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD HANIF S. KALIA and 2 others vs THE STATE 2009 P Cr. L J 1192