Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 373 of 1978, decided on 19th October 1978.

(On appeal from the order and judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 8th August 1978 in Cr. Misc. No. 3029/B of 1978).

‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Special leave to appeal‑ Contention that in spite of direction of High Court not yet certain as to when Sessions Judge would take up case for trial and as such ground of delay entitling accused to bail continued to be available‑Direction of High Court for expeditious trial being very clear, premature for petitioners to come to Supreme Court on account of supposed non‑compliance of direction Period indicated by High Court having not expired plea untenable No progress being made in trial of case during such period, petitioners in such eventuality, held, would be entitled to take matter again to High Court but no question arises, in circumstances of case, of grant of special leave to appeal.‑[Delay].

Ch. Ghulam Bari Saleemi, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing : 19th October 1978.

‑The two petitioners are aggrieved by the refusal of the Lahore High Court, by its order dated the 8th of August 1978, to enlarge them on bail during the pendency of a murder case against them in the Sessions Court at Lahore.

The incident involving the petitioners is alleged to have occurred at 9‑30 p. m. on the 2nd of June 1976, in the area of Police Station Lohari Gate in Lahore city, a report of which was made soon after at 10‑15 p. m. Both the petitioners were directly implicated by the first informant who claimed to be an eye‑witness of the occurrence, The petitioners were arrested on the 7th of June 1976, and knives stained with human, blood were recovered at their instance. The main ground taken for the grant of bail for the High Court was that there had been inordinate delay in the trial of the case. The learned Judge has observed, in the order under appeal, that the trial of the case had already commenced in April this year but for some personal reasons the learned Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the case had been entrusted, did not wish to proceed with the case, and as a result the case now stands transferred back to the file of the learned Sessions Judge. The High Court has directed him to finalise the case within two or three months by giving it priority over other cases pending in that Court. In view of this direction the learned Judge formed the view that no justification for bail was made out on the ground of alleged delay in the disposal of the case.

Mr. Ghulam Bari Saleemi, the learned counsel for the petitionersl contends that in spite of the direction made by the High Court it is not/ certain as to when the learned Sessions Judge will take up the case for trial, and, therefore, the ground of delay continues to be available to the petitioners. He submits that as the learned Additional Sessions Judge has returned the case to the Sessions Judge, it cannot be said that the case is under trial.

We regret we see no merit in this submission. The direction of the High Court for expeditious trial of the case is very clear and it is premature for the petitioners to come to this Court on account of the supposes non‑compliance of this direction. The period indicated by the High Court has not yet expired. If during this period no progress is made in the trial of the case, the petitioners would be entitled to take the matter again to the High Court, but no question arises, in these circumstances of our granting special leave to appeal.

For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is hereby dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.