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. 484 of 1978, decided on 15th April 1979.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 18‑10‑1978 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3630/B of 1978).
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑
-----S. 497 (5)‑Bail, cancellation of‑Impugned order being correctly passed in light of circumstances as existing at time, events taking place thereafter cannot be made basis of obtaining reversal of such order ‑Respondent if misusing concession of bail and attacking deceased's brother, as alleged, and a case under S. 307, Penal Code, 1860 registered against him, petitioner could, if so advised, move Court concerned for cancellation of bail on such ground but no ground, held; existed for interfering with impugned order.
Shahid Hussain Kadri, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 15th April 1979.
J.‑A case under section 302, P. P. C. was registered by the petitioner herein, against respondent No. 1 who is a young boy of 16 1/2 years of age, at Police Station, Saddar, Gujrat, on 7‑6‑1976 for causing the death of his son Muhammad Younis. The respondent was arrested pending his trial. As the commencement of the trial was nowhere in sight an application for bail (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2502‑B/77) was moved in the Lahore High Court on the ground of inordinate delay in the trial. This application came up before a learned Single Judge of the High Court who observed that a large number of murder trials were pending in the District of Gujrat (650) and in view of this situation a Division Bench of the High Court had while dealing with another murder case from Gujrat District, allowed bail where the incident had taken place on 27‑8‑76 that is on date subsequent to the occurrence in present case, namely, 7‑6‑76. Accordingly, bail was allowed in this case as well by the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 6‑7‑1978.
An application for cancellation of bail was then moved and it was argued that in view of this Court decision in Anwar Khan v. The State (1978 S C M R 314) that mere delay was not a ground on which bail could be allowed, the bail may be cancelled. This matter came up for hearing before the same learned Judge who had earlier granted the bail and he observed that having once exercised his discretion to allow bail, it could not be recalled in the absence of cogent reasons such as the order having been obtained through misrepresentation or suppression of facts or that the concession of bail was being abused in a manner so as to obstruct or hamper the course of fair trial. Accordingly, the application for cancellation of bail was rejected on 18‑10‑1978 with the direction, however, that the trial may be expedited. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the last mentioned order.
Mr. Shahid Hussain Kadri in support of this petition presented a two fold argument. He submitted in the first place that the order of the High Court was inconsistent with dictum laid down by this Court in case of Anwar Khan v. The State. This point has been adequately discussed by the learned Judge in the impugned order and for reasons given by him, we consider that there is no weight in it. In the second place, it was contended that the respondents had misused the concession of bail in that after his release on bail, he had gone to the extent of attacking the brother of the deceased, and a case under section 307, P. P. C. had been registered against him on 12‑1‑1979. The instance, it was submitted, was a clear example of misuse of the concession of bail.
The order impugned before us was passed on 18‑10‑1978 and was correct when passed in the light of the circumstances as they then existed and the events that have taken place thereafter cannot be made the basis of obtaining reversal of the said order. If indeed the respondent has misused the con cession of bail and attacked the brother of the deceased and a case under section 307, P. P. C. has beets registered against him the petitioner may, if so advised, move the Court concerned for cancellation of bail on this ground. However, no ground exists for interfering with the order dated, 18‑10‑1978, which is impugned before us.
The upshot is that this petition fails and is dismissed hereby.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer