MEHR GHULAM NABI vs MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ AND ANOTHER
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order passed by the Lahore High Court dismissing an application for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent, who was accused in a murder case under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether bail granted on the ground of inordinate delay in trial should be cancelled, and whether subsequent events of alleged misuse of bail can invalidate a previously correct order. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's refusal to cancel bail was proper based on the circumstances existing at the time of the impugned order, and that subsequent alleged criminal acts cannot be used to reverse an order that was correct when passed. However, the Court clarified that the petitioner is at liberty to move the appropriate court for cancellation of bail based on the fresh allegations of misuse. The key principle laid down is that an order refusing or granting bail is evaluated based on the circumstances prevailing at the time of its making, and subsequent conduct must be raised through fresh proceedings for bail cancellation before the appropriate forum.
- Whether bail granted on the ground of inordinate delay in trial can be cancelled based on subsequent events occurring after the bail order?
- Can an appellate court set aside a bail cancellation order on the basis of facts that transpired after the said order was passed?
- What is the appropriate remedy when an accused misuses the concession of bail by committing a subsequent offence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, 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 161 years of age, at Police Station Saddar, Gujrat, on 7-6-76 for causing the death of his son Mohammad 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 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 the present case, namely, 7-6-76. Accordingly, bail was allowed in this case as well by the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 6-7-78.
2. 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 (1) 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 re-call 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 18-10-78 with the direction, however, that the trial may be expedited. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the last mentioned order.
3. 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 the dictum laid down by this Court in case of Anwar Khan v. 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.
4. In the second place, it was contended that the B respondents bad 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 12-1-79. This instance, it was submitted, was a clear example of misuse of the con--cession of bail.
5. The order impugned before us was passed on 18-10-78 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 concession of bail and attacked the brother of the deceased and a case under section 307, P. P. C.
6. Has been 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 18-10-78 which is impugned before us.
7. The upshot is that this petition fails and is dismissed hereby.
Cited by 7 cases
- Mrs. GHAZALA PARVEEN vs SADIQ DANIEL and 18 others 2010 YLR 1275
- SAFDAR KHAN vs THE STATE and 4 others 1993 P Cr. L J 2413
- INAYATULLAH vs TAJ MUHAMMAD and another- 1991 P Cr. L J 1394
- Dr. ABDUL SATTAR vs ABDUR RAHIM and 3 others 1990 P Cr. L J 630
- Haji RAB NAWAZ vs Mian SAFDAR KHAN 3 AND Other 1982 PLD Lahore 309
- VIK10 vs ABDULLAH AND ANOTHER 1980 P Cr. L J 602
- AIJAZ ALI vs THE STATE P.L.D. 1981 Karachi 484