Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 75 of 1968, decided on 15th March 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court dated the 14th February 1968, in of West Pakistan, Lahore, Civil Miscellaneous No. 246 of 1968, Writ Petition No. 909 of 1965).
S. 497-Bail-Mere fact that there has been inordinate delay in disposal of criminal case-Not itself a ground for grant of bail to accused charged with offences under S. 302/34, P. P. C.
D. M. Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioners.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 15th March 1968.
. -This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore Bench, refusing to grant bail to the petitioners herein, during the pendency of a writ petition in the High Court.
The petitioners were arrested a case under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and were sent up for trial. But while the case was pending before the Criminal Court, the same was transferred to a Tribunal under the West Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1963. The petitioners were there convicted and sentenced to 14 years rigorous imprisonment each, on the 12th October 1964. On appeal, however, the Commissioner, on the 12th January 1965, remanded the case for fresh trial.
Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioners moved the High Court under Article 98 of the Constitution, on the 5th May 1965, contending that an offence under section 302/34, P: P. C. was not included amongst the Scheduled offences under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1963. This case was referred to a Full Bench, which, on the 2nd of March 1967, decided that the reference to the Tribunal was competent.
It is not understood why after this the writ petition of the petitioners was not disposed of. But it appears, that while the writ petition remained pending, the petitioners applied for bail repeatedly on the 5th April 1967, 13th July 1967, and finally on the 17th January .1968, but each of these applications were dismissed.
The only ground on which they sought bail in the High Court was that they were arrested as long ago as the 12th November 1963 and they are still undergoing detention in jail as under-trial prisoners, for, their cases are being delayed.
The High Court took the view that the delay was attributable in a large measure to the dilatory tactics employed by the petitioners themselves who had, ever since the disposal of the reference to the Full Bench on the 2nd March 1967, not taken diligent steps to have their writ petition heard, but had actually been getting the hearing delayed by making repeated applications for amendment of the writ petition, first on the 29th July 1967, and then again on the 9th November 1967.
Learned Counsel contends that this was not a proper ground for refusing bail. But we are unable to agree, for the High Court was bound to decide the bail applications in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Muhammad Aslam v. The State PLD 1967 S C 539 Under those principles the mere fact that there has been inordinate delay in the disposal of a criminal case, is not in itself a ground for granting bail to persons accused of having t committed offences punishable with death or transportation for
life under section 302/34, P. P. C.
We see no ground, therefore, to interfere. This petition is accordingly, dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer