MUHAMMAD USMAN vs RABAN AND 4 Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the High Court of Sind, Karachi, whereby four respondents accused of double murder under sections 302, 34, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code were granted post-arrest bail, while the bail application of their co-accused Rajab was rejected. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting bail to co-accused where medical evidence and circumstances suggest the fatal injuries on the deceased were inflicted by a single assailant, supporting the High Court's view regarding the motive. The Supreme Court held that the impugned bail order of the High Court was unexceptionable and declined to interfere, noting that observations made in bail orders do not prejudice the trial court, which must decide the case strictly on evidence. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether bail can be granted to co-accused when medical evidence indicates fatal injuries were inflicted by a single assailant?
- Do observations made by a superior court in a bail order prejudice the subsequent trial of the accused?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with an order granting post-arrest bail passed by the High Court?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.-This leave petition, which is directed against the order dated 2-4-1978 of the High Court of Sind, Karachi, arises in the following circumstances: In consequence of the twin murders of Mst. Sharmnaz, the step mother of accused Rajab and of deceased Muharram, the four respondents herein, alongwith the said Rajab, were arrested under section 302/34/114, P. P. C. After their arrest all five of them tried to secure bail for themselves first from the Court of Sessions Judge, Larkana and thereafter from the High Court. In the Sessions Court, however, all of them failed but the High Court granted to the four respondents herein bail by the impugned order. But rejected the bail application of accused Rajah. Feeling aggrieved of the order of the High Court, the petitioner has come up to this Court seeking leave to appeal against it.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner There is no dispute that Mst. Sharmnaz, the step- mother of accused Rajab (whose bail applica--tion has been rejected by the High Court) and deceased Muharram, both were done to death for which the respondents and Rajab were accused. The case of prosecution is that Mst. Sharmnaz had illicit relations with deceased Muharram and so accused Rajab, with the aid of four respondents herein, murdered them. In the F.
3. I. R., however, what was mentioned was that the respondents had given to Muharram hatchet blows. But according to Mr. Usman Ghani, the learned counsel who appeared in the High Court for the State, the deceased was found to have suffered three continuous incised wounds, bone deep, 7' x 5' x 4' on the back of his neck. But these injuries appeared to be the work of one man as these were on the same spot. Proceeding on this basis, the High Court, therefore, allowed to respondents herein bail-observing that perhaps Mst. Sharmnaz and Muharram both had been murdered by accused Rajab as "Karo"-i. e., due to `Ghairat'. The learned counsel for petitioner has not been able to controvert the factual statement made by the learned counsel for the State in the High Court in B regard to the hatchet injuries suffered by deceased Muharram. In these circumstances, therefore, the impugned order of the High Court would seem to be unexceptionable.
4. The learned counsel, however, argued that in the impugned order the learned Judge in the High Court has made observations in regard to the merits of the case which is bound to prejudice the trial of the accused. There is no force in this contention. In any event the learned trial Judge would be in no way influenced by any observations made in the impugned order, as he would be deciding the case before him only on the basis of evidence and no other consideration.
5. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- GHULAM RASOOL Versus State 2010 PLD 384