ZAFAR vs MUHAMMAD ABAD and others
This criminal petition was filed by the complainant to challenge a bail-granting order passed by the High Court of Sindh. The petitioner sought to impugn the legality of the order, arguing that it was not based on a proper appreciation of the facts, despite acknowledging the existence of two counter-versions of the same occurrence. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the petition was filed 22 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation. When confronted with this delay, the petitioner failed to provide any plausible explanation or sufficient cause in the accompanying application for condonation of delay filed under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. Consequently, the Court held that the petition could not be entertained due to the failure to meet the requirements of limitation. The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal petition solely on the ground that it was barred by limitation, without reaching the merits of the bail order.
- Can a criminal petition be entertained by the Supreme Court if it is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation without a plausible explanation?
- Is an application for condonation of delay sufficient to save a time-barred petition if it fails to disclose a plausible or sufficient cause?
- Order XXXIII Rule 6, Supreme Court Rules 1980
' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---Aggrieved by bail granting order dated 5-6-2009, passed by learned Single Judge in Chambers of the High Court of Sindh, Bench at Sukkur, in Criminal Bail Application No,203 of 2009, this criminal petition has been preferred by the complainant in Crime No, 46 of 2008, Police Station Faiz Gunj, District Khairpur, to impugn the legality of the said order.
2. Making reference to the relevant facts of the case and contents of the F.I.R., submission of Mr. Ghulam Qadir Jatoi learned A.O.R. Is that bail granting order is not based on proper appreciation of relevant facts of the case. He, however, did not dispute that it is a case of two counter versions, as per the facts stated in the first F.I.R lodged by one Muhammad Ramzan and the other lodged by present petitioner, narrating two different stories of the same occurrence.
When confronted with the question of limitation, the criminal petition having been filed 22 days after the prescribed period of limitation for filing such petition against the impugned order, learned counsel has no plausible explanation to offer in this regard. Even in the application for condonation of delay moved under Order XXXIII, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, which is accompanied with this criminal petition, no plausible or sufficient cause has been disclosed by the petitioner for not approaching this Court within time.
4. This being the position, this criminal petition is dismissed being barred by limitation. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 3 cases
- Muhammad Arshad Nadeem vs State PLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 345
- Muhammad Arshad Nadeem vs The State 2021 SCP 346, 2021 PSC (Crl.) 964
- MUHAMMAD ARSHAD NADEEM Versus State 2021 PLD 927