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.
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑3 of 1971, decided on 2nd March 1971.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, Karachi, dated the 4th January 1971, in Cr. B. A. No. 526.of 1971).
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),
S. 497‑Bail in non bailable offence‑Long delay in inquiry and callous disregard of prosecution to procure presence of some accused‑Not a single witness examined and accused rotting in Jail for 8 years‑Sessions Judge directed by Supreme Court to consider case of accused (in matter of bail) at par with other accused who had been released on bail by him.
Sayyed Abdullah Shah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ahmadullah Faruqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 2nd March 1971.
Six persons were killed by the use of tire arms in Taluka Hala. District Hyderabad on 15‑1‑1963. The present petitioners along with seven others were named in the First Information Report as the culprits besides two or three others. One of them, namely, Warroo was arrested during the investigation and identified at the test parade by P. Ws.
The petitioners were placed under arrest on some date prior to the 12th February 1963, when they were along with their cc‑accused sent to the Court of a local Magistrate at Hyderabad for holding inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code.
It should have been a matter of some concern to the learned Judge in the High Court and the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, that the petitioners are rotting in Jail for the last eight years and so far not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution to support the charges brought against them.
The delay in bringing the petitioners and their co‑accused to trial and the laches shown by the prosecution were sufficient grounds for releasing the petitioners on bail as was done in the case of Warroo and another co‑accused The distinction made by the Sessions Judge that the petitioners had failed to appeal from the order of the Additional Sessions Judge refusing bail to them of merits was in law untenable. The present petition was based of ground of extended delay in the inquiry and the callous disregard of the prosecution to procure presence of some of the accused, but for which the inquiry might well have been completed by now.
We, however, withheld grant of leave to appeal as it would cause further inordinate delay and direct the petitioners to renew their application for bail before the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, who will deal with their case at par with the case of Warroo and another accused who were granted bail in similar circumstances.
With the observations made above leave to appeal is refused.
Leave refused..
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer