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. 10‑R of 1982, in Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.
61 of 1979, decided on 23rd October, 1982.
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 16‑1‑1979, in Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1978/BWP).
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑
‑‑ S. 426(1‑A)‑Bail to convicts in case of non‑decision of appeal within certain period‑Period mentioned in S. 426(1‑A) for release of convicts‑appellants, on account of hierarchy of appellate and revisional forums on criminal sides, would in many cases have already passed Contention that appeal having not been decided within two years such fact entitled convicts‑appellants to be released on bail if accepted would imply automatic release on bail in all such cases‑Held: Such intention could not be imputed to Legislature‑Inordinate delay‑Can be kept in mind by Supreme Court while dealing with question of bail during pendency of appeal‑Delay, per se, however, does not crate any right to bail.
Sh. Nasim Hassan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Karam Elahi Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Date of hearing : 23rd March, 1982.
.‑Leave to appeal was granted in a murder case on 15‑7‑1979. This application has been filed by convicts/ appellants who are serving sentences of imprisonment for life, for suspension of their sentence on the ground of delay in the hearing of appeal.
Learned counsel has relied on the amended provision of section 426, Cr. P. C. which requires the appellate Court in some circumstances to release the convicts/appellants before it; provided it does not record reasons otherwise to refuse such a relief. According to the learned counsel this case would be covered by section 426(4‑A)(c), Cr. P. C. where under bail can be granted in cases of sentence of imprisonment for life when the appeal has not been decided within two years of the conviction. As the applicants were convicted on 1‑6‑1978, two years having elapsed, they are entitled to bail.
It is not denied that the question of bail in criminal appeal pending before this Court is not controlled by section 426 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which applied to the appellate Courts established under the said Code. But the learned counsel prayed that the principle underlying the said provision should be followed by this Court.
Subsection (1‑A) of section 426, Cr. P. C. prescribes various periods sentence, which an appellate Court functioning under the Criminal Procedure) Code, has to keep in mind. In many cases when the matter is brought to this Court either as direct appeal or as a petition for special leave to appeal, those periods, on account of hierarchy of the appellate and revisional forum on the criminal sides, would have already passed. The argument, if, accepted would imply automatic release on bail in all such cases. This could not be the intention underlying the law.
Inordinate delay, can be kept in mind by this Court when dealing with the question of bail during the pendency of appeal, before it ; but it does not create any right to bail, under the prevailing law. Keeping in view the dates of the filing of the petition for leave to appeal, the grant of the leave and the pendency of other cases, it is not a fit case for grant of bail on ground of delay. This application is, therefore, dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer