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 No.14‑R of 1984, decided on 18th April, 1984.
(Against the judgment and order dated 21‑2‑1984 of the Sind High Court, Sukkur Bench, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.80 of 1984).
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.497(1), proviso (b)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Accused granted bail on. ground of delay in trial‑‑Order impugned‑‑Plea raised that suppression of rejection of last bail application disentitled accused from seeking an equitable relief (bail)‑‑Accused responsible for delay in trial‑‑Leave granted and bail able warrants of arrest with show‑cause notice for rehearing of bail application, issued.
M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th April, 1984.
The petitioner who is the complainant in a case registered at Police Station Daharki, District Sukkur, on 16‑12‑1979 under section 364/34 P.P.C., altered subsequently to 302/201/220 P.P.C., seeks leave to appeal against an order of the Sind High Court dated 21‑2‑1984 whereby an application seeking recall of the order admitting the respondent to bail, was dismissed.
Though the case was registered in December, 1979 and related to the murder of the father of the petitioner and the respondent‑accused, the latter surrendered on 21‑10‑1981 i.e. after about 22 months. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, rejected his applications for bail on 16‑12‑1979, 12‑11‑1981, 29‑10‑1983 and 11‑2‑1984. Three days after he submitted an application for bail in the High Court suppressing the rejection of the bail on 11‑2‑1984 and got bail on 24‑2‑1984. He was admitted to bail mainly on the ground that in terms of section 497 subsection (i) of section 498 clause (b) of third proviso Cr.P.C., more than two years had elapsed and the trial had not concluded. The respondent, was not found responsible for the delay
The petitioner sought cancellation of the bail but the High Court declined.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suppression of the rejection of the last bail application only three days before making a fresh application disentitled the respondent from seeking an equitable relief. Besides, the delay in the trial had taken place either on account of the respondent or one of his co‑accused. He has particularly drawn our attention to 'the fact that after his admission to bail, the respondent has delayed the trial in diverse manners thereby deflecting the course of justice 'and putting the petitioner to great inconvenience who has to travel all the way from Faisalabad to Sukkur and return without any progress being made in the case. We grant leave to appeal.
Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, notice to issue to the respondent to show cause why in view of suppression of material facts, his application for bail be not ordered to be re‑heard. Bail able warrants issuing against the respondent in the sum of Rs.10, 000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate of the place where the respondent is ordinarily residing.
M.I. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer