MUHARRAM and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter arises from an appeal filed by the appellants against their conviction, challenging the tenability of the trial court's judgment. The core legal question concerned the validity of a conviction judgment deemed poor in form and content, and passed with an inordinate delay after the conclusion of arguments. The Sindh High Court, with the frank concession of the State Counsel, held that the impugned judgment could not be maintained and was legally untenable. Consequently, by consent, the court set aside the judgment and remanded the case to the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, for rehearing arguments and rendering a fresh judgment within three months. Furthermore, considering the peculiar circumstances, the inordinate delay in judgment delivery, and the State's non-objection, the court laid down the principle that appellants who were previously on bail should be granted post-arrest bail upon remand pending the fresh decision.
- Can a conviction judgment be set aside and remanded due to poor form and content and inordinate delay in delivery?
- Whether appellants who were on bail prior to conviction are entitled to bail when their case is remanded for a fresh trial or judgment?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.---Learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out certain infirmities in the contents of judgment of the trial Court to plead that the same was untenable.
2. ' Caught up in the web learned State Counsel frankly concedes that the impugned judgment could not be maintained.
3. ' The judgment passed by Mr. Ghulam Mustafa A. Memon, IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad being poor in the form and content could hardly be allowed to exist.
4. ' Accordingly by consent impugned judgment is set aside. The case is remanded to the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad for rehearing the arguments, and passing a fresh judgment in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months.
2. Learned counsel submits that before being convicted by the trial Court the appellants were on bail and that the case is being remanded on account of improper judgment therefore, they may be released on bail.
5. ' Learned State Counsel has conceded to this request, particularly submitting that the arguments in the case were heard on 28-3-2006 while the judgment was passed on 31-10-2006 with an inordinate delay.
6. ' Keeping in view very peculiar and compelling circumstances of the case in hand coupled with the outright no objection extended by State, concession of bail has to be extended to the appellants.
7. ' In the circumstances the appellants are directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- PAHAR KHOSO and others vs The STATE and others 2018 P Cr. L J 1240