Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8 of 1985 in Criminal Appeal No.665 of 1981, decided on 22nd July, 1985.

---S.426--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/148/149--Suspension of sentence--Bail was refused to accused in spite of statutory period having passed--Period of more than a year and a half elapsed since then but no progress was made in disposal of appeal which was pending for last three years and nine months--Sentence suspended and accused ordered to be enlarged on bail.

Dr.Farooq A.Chaudhry for Petitioner.

Shabbir Lali for the State.

The bail petition filed by the petitioner' and his co-appellants, on merits, was rejected on 15-6-1983. Thereafter Crl. Misc. No.3/83 was moved on behalf of the petitioner and two others for grant of bail. The main ground urged for grant of bail was that in spite of period of 2 years having passed, the appeal had not been fixed for hearing. The bail was refused vide order dated 13-12-1983, and the passage of statutory period was considered alongwith the part played by the petitioner and his co-appellants in the occurrence.

2. The petitioner has moved this petition again urging grant of bail on the ground of non-disposal of the appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the petitioner was refused bail vide order dated 13-12-1983 in spite of the fact that a period of 2 years had elapsed, still there is room for re-consideration of the bail on the ground of long period having passed, crossing the limit of 2 years, prescribed for consideration of grant of bail if th6 appeal is not decided. Learned counsel contended that the position now is, that a period of 3 years and 9 months has passed, and there is no possibility of the appeal coming up for hearing at least till two weeks after the vacation, and that would mean that even if the appeal is taken up at the earliest, it will be almost after 4 years of the conviction.

The other thing pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, is, that the appeal has been directed to be placed before my learned brother Mian Qurban Sadiq Ikram, J (vide order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice), who will be working after vacation at Multan Bench and it is not known as to when he would be available for hearing the appeal.

Learned counsel has also pointed out that although the petitioner was alleged to have caused an injury to the deceased, but the fatal injury was not ascribed to him.

Learned counsel has further pointed out that adjournment was never sought on behalf of the petitioner. He has also produced photostat copy of the order dated 6-3-1985 passed by the Supreme Court in Crl. Appeal No.27/85 wherein bail was granted for the reason that the appeal was not fixed after the passage of the statutory period within the time stipulated by a specific order.

4. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to controvert any of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Although the bail was refused to the petitioner in spite of the statutory period having passed, vide my order dated 13-12-1983, but I feel inclined to exercise the discretion, in view of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly in view of the fact that since after the rejection of bail vide order dated " 13-12-1983 a period of 191 months has elapsed without any progress in the disposal of the appeal. He shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. twenty thousand with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner. Sadar, Lahore.

M.Y.H./M-345/L Bail allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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