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. 231 of 1968, decided on 18th October 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 28th June 1968, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1 of 1968/Criminal Appeal No. 457 of 1968).
Supreme Court does not interfere with purely discretionary orders unless discretion exercised perversely.
S. 496‑Bail pending appeal‑No general rule that accused, in bailable offence entitled as of right to be enlarged on bail during pendency of appeal against conviction‑Bail discretionary with Court.
There can be no such general rule that a person convicted of a bailable offence is entitled as of right to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of his appeal against his conviction. Bail is always in the discretion of the Court and this discretion has of necessity, therefore, to be exercised upon the facts and circumstances of each case according to sound judicial principles.
Ss. 426, 496 & 497-- Bail pending appeal‑Powers under S. 426 not controlled by provisions of Ss. 496 & 497 although principles laid down therein to be borne in mind in granting or refusing bail.
Hata and others v. The State P L D 1967 Lah. 1302 ref.
M. Dilawar Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for the State.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 18th October 1968.
The respondent Shah Sawar who has been convicted under section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code by the Sessions Court of Jhelum and sentenced to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment, filed an appeal against his conviction in the High Court of West Pakistan. This appeal admitted to regular hearing and the said respondent was enlarged can bail by an order passed on the 28th June 1968, relying upon an earlier decision of the same High Court in the case of Hata and others v. The State (P L D 1967 Lah. 1302).
The State has now applied for leave to appeal from this order mainly to have the decision in the above‑mentioned case reviewed and if necessary, corrected by this Court.
It is not the practice of this Court to interfere with pure discretionary orders unless such a discretion has been exercised perversely. The decision in Hata's case is by a learned Single Judge of the High Court and has not been consistently followed even by the same High Court.
There can be no such general rule that a person convicted of a bailable offence is entitled as of right to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of his appeal against his conviction. Bail is always in the discretion of the Court and this discretion has of necessity, therefore, to be exercised upon the facts and circumstances of each case according to sound judicial principles.
The power under section 426 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not as already pointed out by this Court in the case of Khalid Saigol v. The State (P L D 1962 S C 495) controlled by the provisions of sections 496 and 497, Cr. P. C. although the principles therein indicated will, have to be borne in mind in granting or refusing bail.
In these circumstances we do not consider it necessary to grant leave to appeal in this case merely for the reconsideration of the decision in Hata's case, particularly, since in the present case nothing has been brought on the record to show that the discretion was improperly exercised by the High Court.
The 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