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. 476 of 1981, decided on 19th April, 1982.
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 10‑11‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Cr. Miscellaneous No. 3041‑B/81).
‑‑ Ss. 497 & 498‑Bail, grant or, cancellation of [Murder‑easel‑Grant or cancellation of bail in a murder case when trial already com menced‑Ordinarily not considered as proper on account of some prejudicial effects‑Cancellation of bail may however be necessary in proper cases, e.g. when accused hampering or' trying to prolong 'trial or attempting to suborn evidence‑Delay occurring in progress of trial not proved to be due to conduct of respondents and trial Judge adjourning trial without sufficient reasons many times bail, held, could not be cancelled on ground of trial having been hampered or prolonged by accused respondents.
-S-540‑A‑Mere absence of one or other accused on medical grounds when large in number and represented by counsel, held, by no means an impediment to continuance of trial and S. 540‑A and other provisions of Criminal Procedure Code; 1898 could be made use of.
-.S-302‑Murder cases according to rules and directions on subject, held; have to be disposed of within a short period of time after completion.
Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam chaudhry, Advocate on‑Record for Petitioner.
S. M. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 3.
Date of hearing: 19th April, 1982.
‑Leave to appeal has been sought front the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 10‑11‑1981, whereby it declined to cancel the bail earlier granted to respondents Nos. 1 and 2, in a murder case, mainly, because the trial had by then commenced.
It is true that the grant or cancellation of bail in a murder case, when the trial has commenced, ordinarily is not considered as proper on account of some prejudicial effects but in proper cases, for example, when the accused is hampering or trying to prolong the trial (or attempts to suborn evidence), it might become necessary to cancel the bail; notwithstanding the accused having a good prima facie case. In this case also the bail could be cancelled on the former ground but for the consideration that we are not satisfied beyond doubt that the delay, which has occurred so far, is due to the conduct of the said respondents. And that it is not due to inexperience or lack of knowledge of the learned trial Judge about how to proceed with the trial in a murder case. He has adjourned the murder trial without sufficient reasons so many times. Mere absence on medical grounds of one or the other accused when they are large in number and are represented by counsel, was by no means an impediment to the continuance of the trial. Section 540‑A, Cr. P. C. and other provisions of Cr. P. C. could be made use of. And we are surprised when noticing several other adjournments, which prima facie, it appears, could be avoided easily. The learned trial Judges should realise that according to the rules and directions on the subject, murder cases, are to be disposed of within a short period of time after completion. This petition with the foregoing remarks is dismissed. One copy each be sent to the learned trial Court and the High Court.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer