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.
1971 S C M R 663
Present : Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Waheeduddin Ahmad, JJ
WARYAM AND 3 OTHERS‑Petitioners
versus
THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 220 of 1971, decided on 19th October 1971.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court, Lahore, dated the 5th June 1971, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1273/13 of 1971).
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),
S. 497‑Bail‑Accused committed to Sessions Court to stand trial‑Not ordinarily entitled to bail under S. 497 as it cannot be said that no reasonable grounds appear to believe that such person was not guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life.
Muhammad Asif Jan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbul Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 19th October 1971.
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑
The petitioners have been com mitted to stand trial under sections 148 and 302 read with section 149, P. P. C. They were refused bail by the High Court in the first instance, but the Sessions Judge who was probably not aware of that order allowed them bail inter alia on the ground that the co‑accused of the petitioners was arrested after the com mitment proceedings had been completed and it will take some time to complete the inquiry against him.
The High Court has on a petition filed by the private com plainant set aside the order granting bail from which the petitioner seeks leave to appeal.
The order passed by the High Court is in accord with the rule laid down by this Court, that if a person is committed to stand trial he will not ordinarily be entitled to bail under section 497, Cr. P. C., as it cannot be said that no reasonable grounds appear to believe that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life. No extra ordinary feature to exclude the petitioner's case from this rule was brought to our notice.
Mr. Asif Jan urged that as the trial of the petitioners has been postponed to await the completion of the commitment proceedings against co‑accused Fazil which will take quite some time, it was a fit case for grant of bail. We do not see why the inquiry against Fazil should not be expedited, but if it is likely to be delayed his case should be separated from the case of the petitioner and the Sessions Judge should proceed with the trial.
With these observations the petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer