| Case ID |
38233481-5174-451a-8645-b664e8becbd6 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Cr. B. A. No. S-1226 of 2013 |
| Decision Date |
May 30, 2014 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court granted bail to the applicant/accused, Muhammad, in Crime No. 89/2013, registered under sections 324, 114, 147, 148, and 149 of the Penal Code. The earlier bail application was dismissed by the trial court on the grounds that the charges were punishable under section 336 of the Penal Code, which provided a punishment of up to 10 years. However, the High Court observed that the main punishment under section 336 is compensation (Arsh or Daman) and that Tazir could only be awarded under specific conditions, which were not satisfied in this case. The court emphasized that bail is generally granted unless there are substantial grounds to deny it, and in this case, the applicant had made a case for bail. The court highlighted contradictions in the evidence regarding the timing of the incident and the lack of recovered weapons, reinforcing the decision to grant bail. |
| Summary |
In the case of Muhammad vs. 1st Additional Sessions Judge, the Sindh High Court addressed the bail application of the accused in a serious criminal matter involving multiple charges under the Penal Code. The court meticulously analyzed the applicable laws, particularly the Criminal Procedure Code and the Penal Code, focusing on the provisions of sections related to bail eligibility and the nature of the offenses charged. The court noted that while the trial court had previously denied bail based on the severity of the charges, it found that the legal framework allows for bail unless the crime falls within certain prohibitory clauses, which was not established in this instance. The decision underscored the principle that bail should be granted as a rule, with refusal being an exception, and the necessity for further inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the case. The court ultimately ruled in favor of granting bail, emphasizing the importance of fair trial rights and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The ruling serves as a critical reference for future bail applications, particularly in cases involving similar charges, highlighting the need for careful consideration of legal standards and evidentiary requirements in the bail process. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD JUNAID GHAFFAR, JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Sajjad Ahmed Chandio,
Shahid Shaikh, A.P.G.
|
| Petitioners |
Sajjad Ahmed Chandio
|
| Respondents |
ANOTHER,
1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
|
| Citations |
2015 SLD 1068 = 2015 YLR 2595
|
| Other Citations |
Ali Muhammad v. The State PLD 2009 Lah. 312,
Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar-ul-Haq and 3 others 1996 SCMR 1845
|
| Laws Involved |
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
|
| Sections |
497(2),
324,
336,
337(2),
337-N,
114,
147,
148,
149
|