RAZZAQ AHMED vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court whereby bail granted to him by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case registered under sections 324, 452, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code was cancelled. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the pre-trial bail. The Supreme Court held that the Additional Sessions Judge had failed to correctly follow the principles laid down by superior courts regarding the grant of bail in cases falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that no ground was made out to interfere with the well-reasoned discretionary order of the High Court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, laying down the principle that discretionary orders of the High Court regarding bail cancellation will not be interfered with lightly when the trial court misapplied bail principles for offences within the prohibitory clause.
- Whether the High Court was justified in cancelling bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge?
- Did the Additional Sessions Judge correctly follow the principles for granting bail in cases falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Are there sufficient grounds to interfere with a discretionary order of the High Court cancelling bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---The petitioner was granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Daska vide order dated 17-3-2001, in a case registered through F.I.R. No, 24 of 2001 under sections 324/452/148/149, P.P.C. The occurrence took place at night. According to the complainant the assailants had muffled their faces. Therefore, he did not mention the name of any person but in his statements made after the recording of F.I.R. He named the present petitioner who had caused injury to Muhammad Siddique whose kidney was damaged. The learned Additional Session Judge, granted bail on the ground that in the F.I.R. Name of the petitioner had not been mentioned and that he was behind the bar and that supplementary statement made by the complainant seemed to be inadmissible.
2. Learned Judge of the High Court on the application made by the complainant cancelled the said bail granted to the petitioner through the impugned judgment dated 21-6-2001 against which leave is sought.
3. We find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while granting bail did not correctly follow the principles laid down by superior Courts regarding grant of bail in a case falling in the prohibitory clause of A section 497, Cr.P.C. No, ground has been made out to interfere with the well reasoned discretionary order of the High Court.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.
Cited by 2 cases
- Peer Syed Fayaz Shah vs The State 2023 SHC 992
- PEERAL and others vs THE STATE and others 2003 MLD 1698