Pakistan Case Law
1970 SCMR 794

ASLAM Alias KHAN AND 4 Others vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1970 SCMR 794
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 75 of 1970 Criminal
Date1970-04-22
Judge(s)Sajjad Ahmad and Wahiduddin Ahmad
Authored byWahiduddin Ahmad
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against an order regarding post-arrest bail. The core legal question concerns the appropriate forum and stage for seeking bail after commitment proceedings have concluded and the accused have been committed to the Sessions Court for trial. The Court held that once commitment proceedings are finished, the proper course for the petitioners is to first move the Sessions Judge concerned to decide the question of bail based on the prosecution evidence, before approaching the High Court or the Supreme Court. The petition was accordingly dismissed as premature, establishing the principle of exhausting remedies before the trial court at the relevant stage.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • What is the proper course for seeking bail after commitment proceedings have finished?
  • Can an accused approach the High Court or Supreme Court for bail before moving the Sessions Judge after commitment?
post-arrest bailcommitment proceedingsSessions Courthierarchy of courtscriminal procedure

ORDER

1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners that commitment proceedings have been finished and the petitioners have been committed to Sessions Court for trial. The proper course, therefore, for the petitioners is to move the Sessions Judge concerned for deciding the question whether on the evidence produced by the prosecution, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. It is after the matter is decided by the Sessions Court that the petitioners should move the High Court and if necessary to this Court, for the redress of their grievances. At this stage there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.