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. 173 of 1973, decided on 5th October 1973.
(On appeal from an order of the Lahore High Court made on the 2nd of May 1973, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1152‑B of 1973).
--‑S. 498‑Bail‑Delay in completion of commitment proceedings-Not per se good, ground for, enlarging accused on bail Examining nature of delay ‑and circumstances that caused - Necessary‑Grant of bail by High Court, however, not interfered with by supreme Court in view of commitment proceedings nearing completion‑Committing Magistrate could cancel bail in accordance with law in such circumstance.
Riasat Ali v. Ghulam Muhammad P L D 1968 S C 353 ref..
Allah Wasaya Malik, Advocate instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Abdul Majeed Khan, Advocate instructed by Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Nemo for Respondent No. 3.
Date of hearing : 5th October 1973.
The petitioner, Muhammad Khan, whose brother Gul Muhammad was murdered, is aggrieved by the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court dated the 2nd of May 1973, whereby bail has been allowed to respondents Ataullah and Ghulam Hussain, mainly on account of delay in the completion of commitment proceedings.
It is submitted that the respondents being accused of an offence punish able with death or transportation for life, were not entitled to be enlarged on bail even though they had been in custody for a year and a half, and the commitment proceedings had not been finalised. Relying on In re: Riasat Ali v. Ghulam Muhammad (P L D 1968 S C 353), the learned counsel submits that delay by itself is not a good reason for allowing bail in such cases.
We agree that delay by itself would not justify the grant of bail. I would be necessary, as laid down in the case of Riasat Ali referred to by the learned counsel, to examine the nature of the delay and the circumstance that have caused it. Now, in the instant case it is possible that a different view could be taken on this account but we are not inclined to interfere at this stage with the discretion exercised by the High Court as we are informed that commitment proceedings are nearing completion and the evidence of only three formal witnesses remains to be recorded. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to await the result of these pro ceedings. If the respondents are committed for trial, it shall be open to the learned Magistrate to consider the cancellation of their bail in accordance with law.
With these observations, the petition is disposed of.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer