Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. K‑4 of 1984, decided on 21st May, 1984

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, dated 7‑8‑1983 passed in Cr. Revision Application No. 8 of 1983).

‑‑‑Art. 185‑‑Criminal Procedure. Code (V of 1898), S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether High Court was justified in interfering with order of Sessions Judge cancelling bail.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑ Question whether accused had intention of making murderous assault on complainant being that for further inquiry‑‑No definite evidence available that accused had issued threats to witnesses and thereby abused concession of bail‑‑Order of High Court setting aside order of Sessions Judge canceling bail of accused, held, was legal and therefore, justified in circumstances.

Usman Ghani Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rashid Akhter Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.

Abdul Sattar Shaikh, Additional Advocate‑General Sind instructed by Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 21st May, 1984.

This appeal is directed against the order of a learned single Judge of Sind High Court dated 7‑8‑1983 releasing Muhammad Akram respondent on bail pending trial of a case under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code against him. Respondent is said to have made murderous assault on Maqbool Ahmed appellant herein, on 27‑11‑1982 in which connection first information report was lodged against him at Quaidabad Police Station, Karachi, on the same day at 9.45 p.m. Respondent was granted ad interim pre‑arrest bail on 13‑12‑1982 but it was not confirmed by the Sessions Judge on 14‑2‑1983 and he was arrested. However, soon thereafter on 17‑2‑1983, the Additional Sessions Judge granted him bail under section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, but again on the application by the State; he cancelled it by the order dated 14‑6‑1983 on the ground that the injuries inflicted on the victim were caused on a vital part of the body, and moreover the accused had abused the concession of bail granted to him, in that, he had issued threats to the complainant and his witnesses.

Respondent filed a revision application in Sind High Court against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and the learned single Judge in the High Court on reappraisal of all the facts and circumstances of the case took the view that since "it is alleged that Abdul Rashid, and not the complainant Maqbool Ahmed, was assaulted on his venturing intervention, it is, therefore, the matter for further enquiry as to whether the applicant (respondent) had the intention of making murderous assault on the complainant. As regards other ground of threats to the witnesses there does not seem any definite evidence that the applicant (respondent) had issued threats to the witnesses and thereby abused concession of bail". For these reasons, learned Judge set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and directed respondent's release on bail.

Leave to appeal was granted by this Court in order to consider whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the order of the Additional Sessions Judge cancelling bail.

After having gone through the record of the case in the light of the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, including learned Additional Advocate‑General, who fully supports the order of the High Court, we find that on the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court had not violated any provision or principle of law governing grant of bail and there is no valid justification for this Court to interfere. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

M.B.A. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.