HABIBULLAH AND Another vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the Lahore High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail to two petitioners accused of murder. The petitioners sought bail primarily on the ground of inordinate delay in the trial process, noting that the case had been transferred back to the Sessions Judge after the Additional Sessions Judge declined to proceed. The High Court had previously directed the Sessions Judge to conclude the trial within two to three months, prioritizing it over other matters. The core legal question was whether the transfer of the case and the alleged delay justified the grant of bail despite the High Court's explicit directive for an expeditious trial. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners' claim of delay was premature as the time frame fixed by the High Court for the trial's completion had not yet expired. The Court affirmed that where a higher court has issued clear directions for an expeditious trial, the accused cannot seek bail on grounds of delay before that specified period has elapsed without progress.
- Can an accused be granted bail on the ground of delay when a higher court has already issued specific directions for an expeditious trial?
- Is a petition for bail premature if the time frame set by the High Court for the conclusion of a trial has not yet expired?
- Does the transfer of a case from an Additional Sessions Judge back to a Sessions Judge constitute an inordinate delay justifying bail?
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-The two petitioners are aggrieved by the refusal of the Lahore High Court, by its order dated the 8th of August 1978, to enlarge them on bail during the pendency of a murder case against them in the Sessions Court at Lahore.
2. The incident involving the petitioners is alleged to have occurred at 9-30 p. m. On the 2nd of June 1976, in the area of Police Station Lohari Gate in Lahore city, a report of which was made soon after at 10-15 p. m. Both the petitioners were directly implicated by the first informant who claimed to be an eye-witness of the occurrence, The petitioners were arrested on the 7th of June 1976, and knives stained with human, blood were recovered at their instance. The main ground taken for the grant of bail for the High Court was that there had been inordinate delay in the trial of the case. The learned Judge has observed, in the order under appeal, that the trial of the case had already commenced in April this year but for some personal reasons the learned Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the case had been entrusted, did not wish to proceed with the case, and as a result the case now stands transferred back to the file of the learned Sessions Judge. The High Court has directed him to finalise the case within two or three months by giving it priority over other cases pending in that Court. In view of this direction the learned Judge formed the view that no justification for bail was made out on the ground of alleged delay in the disposal of the case.
3. Mr. Ghulam Bari Saleemi, the learned counsel for the petitionersl contends that in spite of the direction made by the High Court it is not/ certain as to when the learned Sessions Judge will take up the case for trial, and, therefore, the ground of delay continues to be available to the petitioners.
4. He submits that as the learned Additional Sessions Judge has returned the case to the Sessions Judge, it cannot be said that the case is under trial.
5. We regret we see no merit in this submission. The direction of the --High Court for expeditious trial of the case is very clear and it is premature for the petitioners to come to this Court on account of the supposes non-compliance of this direction. The period indicated by the High Court has not yet expired. If during this period no progress is made in the trial of the case, the petitioners would be entitled to take the matter again to the High Court, but no question arises, in these circumstances of our granting special leave to appeal.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is hereby dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- RASHID AHMAD Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN Ltd. 1988 MLD 1475