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 Miscellaneous No. 504/13 of 1973, decided on 22nd March 1973.
‑
S. 498‑Bail‑Delay‑Petitioners continuously in custody for about one year and a half and undoubtedly not responsible for delay of about one year and three months‑Witnesses yet to be examined before Sessions Court and no certainty as to length of time conclusion of trial might involve‑Petitioners, held, entitled to bail. [Delay].
Muhammad Din v. The State Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 1972 ref. Syed Fayyaz Hussain Hamdani for Petitioners.
Naveed Shahryar for A.‑G. for the State.
Date of hearing : 22nd March 1973.
This is second petition for bail by the same accused in a murder case. Petitioner No. 1 has died during the pendency of this petition. "Phi salient features of the case are given in detail in my earlier order dated 4‑4‑72 on Criminal Miscellaneous No. 682/13‑72. This petition was admitted to consider the effect of delay on the question of bail.
2. From the fact given by both the learned counsel it appears that after their arrest in September, 1971 the petitioners are continuously in custody for the last about one year and six months. Out of this, there is some doubt about the delay after December, 1972 as to whether or not the petitioners were responsible for the same but there is absolutely no doubt about the earlier delay of about one year and three months that they were not at all responsible. It is, therefore certain that the delay has already occurred during the pendency of proceedings before the committing A Magistrate of more than a year. On a direction issued by this Court the committing Magistrate reported on 26.2‑73 that he hoped to complete the commitment within about a month. Admittedly, two witnesses are yet to be examined and it is not certain as to how long will it take to conclude l the trial before the Sessions Court. The delay therefore, which would entitle the petitioners for consideration of bail as a matter of discretion, is established.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Muhammad Din v The State (Criminal Appeal No. 7ca 1972) which is reproduced below:
The learned counsel for the parties state that his case may be treat‑.0 as arc appeal and disposed of as such. The appellants were challaned under section .102/48/149, P. P. C. on the 24th August, 1971. They are in jail since then. It appears that the case is dragging on and the commitment proceedings have not been completed as yet. It was pointed out that the learned Magistrate has been transferred and case was to be put up for orders on the 10th July, 1972.
It is thus apparent that for no fault of the appellants they have beta detained in jail for about a year. On the 3rd July, 1972 this Court directed that commitment proceedings should be completed within one month. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General has placed the report of the Committing Magistrate. This report shows that the direction of the Court has not been carried out and the case is still hanging on. In these circumstances, we consider that the prosecution is not interested in the speedy disposal of the commitment proceedings and the case is dragging on. It is evident that there is inordinate to delay in the conduct of the proceedings. In these circumstances we direct that the appellants be released on the bail to the satisfaction of the Committing Magistrate. In case they are committed, it will be open to the committing Magistrate to cancel their bail.
I have already noticed the effect of, and have followed, the above ruling in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3038/8 of 1972, decided in 16‑3‑73.
4. Both the parties are injured. It is stated that six persons allegedly caused injures to deceased out of which only two proved fatal. As noted in my earlier order some questions relating to plea of self defence and/or application of section 304, P. P. C. would arise in this case. Considering all the circumstances of the case, i deem it a tit case for exercise of discretion on basis of delay. I, therefore allow bail to all the petitioners. They shall be released if they furnish bail bonds in tire sum of Rs. 2,1,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Committing Magistrate.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer