SHUKAR DIN vs ZAFAR HAYAT and others
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order passed by the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed an application seeking the cancellation of bail previously granted to the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's refusal to cancel the respondents' bail was legally sound and whether the discretion exercised by the lower courts warranted interference by the apex court. The Supreme Court held that the discretion exercised by the High Court was proper and did not justify appellate interference. The Court noted that the case involved a counter-version, and the Additional Sessions Judge had granted bail to the respondents on the basis that the accused in the counter-case had also been granted bail. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for cancellation of bail, finding it to be without merit. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts will generally not interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion regarding bail unless it is shown to be arbitrary or improper.
- Does the grant of bail in a counter-version case constitute a valid ground for the High Court to refuse the cancellation of bail?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court in bail matters?
- Is the dismissal of a bail cancellation application by the High Court subject to interference if the discretion was exercised properly?
ORDER
' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the order dated 5-10-2000 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No,5776/CB of 2000, whereby application for cancelation of bail granted to respondents Nos.1 to 7 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab, was dismissed.
2. Notices were issued to the respondents and in response thereto, Mr. Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court has appeared on their behalf. This is a case of counter-version and the learned Additional Sessions Judge after careful consideration of all the facts allowed bail to the respondents because in the counter-case the accused named therein had also been allowed bail by him.
3. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record we are of the opinion that the discretion exercised by the learned Judge of the High Court is proper and does not warrant interference by this Court. In this view of the matter, this petition for cancellation of bail has no merit and same is hereby dismissed.