1977 PLP 519 (SCMR)

‑‑ S. 498‑Bail, interim‑Grant or refusal of interim bail‑‑Essentially a matter within High Court s discretion‑‑Supreme Court reluctant to interfere with exercise of such discretion unless discretion shove to be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or in disregard of patent facts of case.‑[Bail]. Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate and Sharif Hussain Bokhari, Advocate (Mahmood A. Quraishi Advocate‑on‑Record) for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing : 8th October 1977. ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.‑The petitioner. Maj. (Red.) Aurangzeb, D. I. G. of Police, Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir (now confined in Kot Lakhpat Jail. Lahore), was convicted by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide judgment dated the 24th of September 1977, for contempt under Article 204 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months the maximum punishment provided by the law. The Appellate Bench has directed that the appeal be heard within a month, but has refused to suspend the sentence of imprisonment. The petitioner now seeks leave to appal against this part of the order. In support of this petition, Maulvi Sirajul Haq arid Mr. Sharif Hussain Bokhari contend that the evidence brought on the record in the High Court did not establish the fact that the petitioner had knowledge of the bail order made by the High Court in respect of Mr. Iftikhar Tari at the time he was taken away to Azad Kashmir from a place in the Rawalpindi district. The learned counsel submit that any subsequent action taken by the petitioner with regard to this prisoner in the territory of Azad Kashmir would not constitute contempt of tile Lahore High Court. They contend that the learned Judges of the Appellate Bench were, therefore, in error in refusing to grant interim bail during the pendency of the appeal. At this stage, we do not think it advisable to go into the merits of the case against the petitioner, as any observations we might make one way or the other might prejudice the disposal of the appeal which is pending in the High Court. We think it will suffice to say that the learned Single lode, who has recorded the conviction against the petitioner, has examined at some length the material brought on the record before coming to conclusions on the factual aspects of the case. Prima facie, the conclusions do not appear to be improbable or perverse, but a detailed appraisal of the evidence has to be carried out by the Appellate Bench, and we should not pre‑empt that function while dealing with the present limited question of interim bail. We further find that the grant or refusal of interim bail is essentially a matter within the discretion of the High Court, and we would be reluctant to interfere with the same unless it is shown that the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, or in disregard of the patent facts of the case. None of these factors appear to be present here. We also take note of the fact that the learned Judges of the High Court have already made a direction that the appeal be heard within one month. We hope that this direction will be complied with. In the circumstances, me arc not inclined to interfere and accordingly dismiss this petition. Petition dismissed.