Find a Lawyer

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑27 of 1962, decided on 17th December 1962.

(On appeal from the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 26th November 1962, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2937 of 1962.)

Supreme Court does not interfere in cases of bail save in exceptional circumstances where refusal to grant bail might entail grave illegality, clear abuse of process, or gross injustice e.g. victimization‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 497 & 498.

Manzur Hussain Bokhari Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Anwar Buttar Attorney for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 17th December 1962.

‑This Court does not interfere in a case of bail, unless the circumstances are altogether of an exceptional, character, so that refusal might entail risk of a grave illegality or clear abuse of process, or some gross act of injustice, e. g. A victimization. The present petition seeks special leave to appeal against refusal of bail before arrest by the High Court of West Pakistan in the following circumstances

One Allah Rakha was, allegedly, killed, and the petitioner Ghulam Haider made the initial report to the police, naming ten accused persons, and stating that the latter made a joint attack upon himself, his wife, and a number of others, including the said Allah Rakha, at his (i.e. Ghulam Haider 's kotha). Ghulam Haider and his wife were both injured, and so was Allah Rakha, who was carried away by the assailants. The opposite‑party filed a report against Ghulam Haider and five other persons viz., the deceased Allah Rakha, Sultan, Jamala, Sharif and Jahangir, of offences of trespass and hurt coupled with rioting, and they (i.e. five excluding the deceased" were challenged under sections 326, 325, and 448, F. P. C. read with section 149 P. P. C. as well as under section 148, P. P. C.

Fourteen days after the occurrence, Karim Bakhsh, father of the deceased, Allah Rakha, filed a complaint before the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, accusing the five persons who had been challenged in the cross-case, of the murder of Allah Rakha. The Sub‑Divisional Magistrate issued non‑bailable warrants for the arrest of the 5 petitioners, who had been on bail in the challan under section 326, etc. P. P. C. This he did after recording preliminary evidence and obtaining a report from the Thana. The Sessions Judge and later, a Single Judge in the High Court refused bail before arrest.

Since an offence under section 326, P. P. C. is punishable with transportation for life, the petitioners could not claim to remain on bail, as of right. The additional charge being levied against them of being responsible for killing Allah Rakha undoubtedly introduces a complication into the case, but does not, by any means lessen the gravity of the accusations outstanding against them. Consequently, it cannot serve as a reason for the exceptional relief of bail before arrest. It is not for this Court to judge of the effect upon the maintainability of the fresh accusation of such matters as (1) the delay of 14 days which occurred before it was made or (2) the fact that the investigating Police, as it is said, did not support the new version, or (3) that the petitioner Ghulam Haider will be hampered in his prosecution of the case in which he is the informant. These matters are under the direct purview of the local authorities, who are in the proper position to judge whether the ends of justice will be best served by refusing, or as the case may be, allow ing bail to persons, who lie under such grave charges. The case initiated by Ghulam Haider is a police case now, and his help would appear to be hardly necessary for successful investigation.

The petition is accordingly dismissed.

A. H. Petition 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.