Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 50 of 1969, decided on 4th March 1969.
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 14th January 1969, in Criminal Revision No. 28 of 1969).
-----
---- S. 497‑Accused committed for trial before Sessions Court on charge of Murder High Court not required to evaluate evidence in matter of bail‑If material on record justifies belief that accused can be found guilty‑High Court can validly refuse grant of bail.
It is not for the Courts at the stage of bail to evaluate the evidence but merely to consider as to whether upon the material on the record such grounds for belief have been made out or not. One of the ways in which this can be done is to consider as to whether upon the material on the record, if no further evidence is called or no rebutting evidence is adduced, the accused can be found guilty or not. If he can be, then that would be a case where reasonable grounds do exist for forming the belief required under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Court would be justified in refusing bail.
Muhammad Ismail Qureshl, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain,
Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 4th March 1969.
This is petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, refusing bail to the petitioners.
The petitioners were, in the first instance, charged under section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, but in revision the High Court directed that they should be charged under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. This was done and they were committed to stand their trial in the Court of Session', Rahimyar Khan. They moved the learned Sessions Judge for bail, who rejected their petition, holding that there was prima facie case against the petitioners supported by at least two eye‑witnesses.
The petitioners went up in revision to the High Court, and it was urged there, with reference to the medical evidence, that the deceased had actually died more than a month later in hospital due to tubercular infection of the lungs which, according to the doctor, had nothing to do with his injuries. The injuries found on the deceased were also neither individually nor collec tively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The cause of death was actually given as heart failure.
An attempt was also made before the High Court to go into the evidence of the eye‑witnesses, but the High Court refused to do that as also held that it would be premature at that stage to decide as to whether section 34 had been rightly applied in the facts of the case. The revision was, accordingly dismissed with a direction to the trial Court to give priority to the case.
The petitioners now seek special leave to appeal and it is contended on their behalf that mere committal for trial to the Court of Sessions is not sufficient to establish that there were reasonable grounds for believing the accused to be guilty for an offence punishable with death or transportation for life. This may be so, but in the present case, if the evidence already adduced by the prosecution remains un-rebutted, then there would certainly be reasonable grounds for believing the accused to be guilty. It is not for the Courts at the stage of bail to evaluate the evidence but merely to consider as to whether upon the material on the record such grounds for belief have been made out or not. One of the ways in which this can be done is to consider as to whether upon the material on the record, if no further evidence is called or no rebutting evidence is adduced, the accused can be found guilty or not. If he can be, then that would be a case where reasonable grounds do exist for forming the belief required under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the present case, we are satisfied that such grounds did exist and, therefore, the High Court acted rightly in refusing bail. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer