2008 PLP 182 (SCMR)
QADIR BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus ALLAH WASAYO and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 182 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas, Hamid Mirza and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ |
| Parties | QADIR BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus ALLAH WASAYO and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 182 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 182 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas, Hamid Mirza and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 182 (SCMR) (QADIR BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus ALLAH WASAYO and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nur-ud-Din Sarki, Advocate Supreme Court and Suleman Habibullah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.
- Dr. Qazi Khalid Ali, Additional Advocate-General, Sindh, Javed Hussain Farooqi, Sub-Inspector/Investigating Officer, Police Station "B" section Khairpur for Respondent No.3.
- 4. After hearing Mr. Nur-ud-Din Sarki, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, Dr. Qazi Khalid Ali, learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh, Investigating Officer Javed Hussain Farooqi and verifying the record of the High Court, we are of the considered opinion that the discretion in the matter of grant of bail in favour of respondents, exercised by the High Court, does not suffer from any legal infirmity or arbitrariness. It is well settled that this Court does not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court unless it is shown to have been exercised in a manner not warranted by law or not supported by the record. We are, therefore, not inclined to disturb the order passed by the High Court. Should the prosecution find sufficient incriminating evidence against the respondents, it would be at liberty to approach the trial Court for recall of the bail granted by the High Court.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from order of Sindh High Court, Sukkur Bench Sukkur, dated 8-3-2007 passed in Criminal Bail Application No.124 of 2006).
S. 498
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Discretion in the matter of grant of bail in favour of accused, exercised by the High Court, did not suffer from any legal infirmity or arbitrariness
Supreme Court would not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court, unless it was shown to have been exercised in a manner not warranted by law or not supported by record
Order passed by the High Court was not disturbed.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
Petitioner-complainant is aggrieved by Sindh High Court, Sukkur Bench order, dated 8-3-2007, confirming interim pre-arrest bail granted to respondents Nos. l and, 2 vide order 27-3-2006.
2. Both the respondents along with co-accused Mukhtiar Ali, Qurban Ali, Ghous Bakhsh, Abdul Ghafoor and Abdul Ghani were nominated for committing Qatl-i-Amd of deceased Abdul Hakim and Karim Bakhsh, committed on or about 23-1.1-2005 at about 9-00 a.m. within the jurisdiction of Police Station `B' Section, District Khairpur. After investigation, both the respondents were found to be not involved in the act, attributed to them. Their names were, accordingly, shown in column No.2 of the charge sheet. During the course of investigation, it transpired that respondent Allah Wasayo was serving as a Senior Teacher/Headmaster in a primary school whereas Khuda Bakhsh was serving as peon in another primary school and were present on duty on the date of incident. In view of plea of alibi raised by them, Investigating Officer recorded the statements of as many as five teachers from both the schools and expressed his opinion that both the respondents were least concerned with the commission of the crime.
3. Both of them were admitted to pre-arrest bail by the High Court as aforesaid. After notice to State as well as the complainant and hearing the parties' counsel, High Court vide impugned order has confirmed the bail granted to them. The necessity to approach the High Court arose upon receipt of charge sheet against the accused persons by the trial Court and summons by the trial Court.
4. After hearing Mr. Nur-ud-Din Sarki, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, Dr. Qazi Khalid Ali, learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh, Investigating Officer Javed Hussain Farooqi and verifying the record of the High Court, we are of the considered opinion that the discretion in the matter of grant of bail in favour of respondents, exercised by the High Court, does not suffer from any legal infirmity or arbitrariness. It is well settled that this Court does not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court unless it is shown to have been exercised in a manner not warranted by law or not supported by the record. We are, therefore, not inclined to disturb the order passed by the High Court. Should the prosecution find sufficient incriminating evidence against the respondents, it would be at liberty to approach the trial Court for recall of the bail granted by the High Court.
5. This petition is, resultantly, dismissed. H.B.T./Q-7/SC??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.