SALAMAT ALI alias CHAAMA vs The STATE and another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 324, 427, 148, 149, and 337-F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether an accused can claim a statutory right to bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the conduct of the accused's retained counsel has deliberately obstructed the trial proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having retained the same counsel and condoned such improper conduct, cannot benefit from the statutory delay and is not entitled to discretionary relief. The court dismissed the petition and directed disciplinary proceedings against the counsel through the provincial bar council, emphasizing that an ethical Bar is indispensable to the judicial system under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973.
- Whether an accused can claim a statutory right to bail when the delay in trial is caused by the obstructionist conduct of the accused's counsel?
- Can the conduct of a retained counsel be imputed to the accused for the purpose of denying discretionary relief like bail?
- Does the statutory right to bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply unconditionally when trial proceedings are hindered by the defense?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 185, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973
ORDER
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The petitioner seeks bail in the case F.I.R. No, 417 dated 20-6-2011 under sections 324, 427, 148, 149, 337-F(vi), P.P.C. Registered at Police Station City Muridkaey, District Sheikhupura. The order which has been passed by the learned trial Court on 21-7-2012 is reproduced below in extenso:-- {{URDU TEXT}}
2. It is obvious that the learned trial Court exercised extreme patience and restraint but counsel retained by the petitioner adopted an attitude which has hindered the administration of justice. Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court candidly stated that the attitude of counsel for the petitioner before the learned trial Court was most improper and should not be countenanced. Upon being questioned we have been informed that Malik Haider Zaman, Advocate continues to be the counsel of the petitioner even to date. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the testimony of even one witness has not been recorded in the case so far. This contention is of little relevance considering the attitude of the petitioner's counsel noted in the order reproduced above. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that consequences of such attitude should not be visited on the petitioner, who according to him, had acquired a statutory right to bail under section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. In support of his contention, he referred to the cases titled Rahim Bux and others v. The State (PLD 1986 Karachi 224) and Zahid Hussain Shah v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 49). We have gone through the cited precedents and note- that the same do not apply in the circumstances of the present case because the same are clearly distinguishable on facts. In the present case the petitioner acting through and represented by his counsel has actually obstructed the progress of the case.
This was not the situation in the precedents cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner by retaining the same counsel has, in effect, adopted and condoned the attitude of his counsel. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, misconceived as the present petition has itself demonstrated that the concession of bail or the discretionary exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 185 of the Constitution should not be exercised in view of what has been stated above and in the order of the learned trial Court dated 21-7-2012.
4. A competent, diligent and ethical Bar is an indispensable component of our judicial system.' This system cannot function properly if Members of the Bar do not adhere to the code of conduct prescribed under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973.
5. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. A copy of the order shall be sent to the Punjab Bar Council for disciplinary proceedings against Malik Haider Zaman. A copy of the order shall also be sent to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court. We would like to express our appreciation for the dignified and firm approach taken by the learned trial Court in the face of provocation and trying circumstances. The office shall send a copy of this order to the learned trial Judge who was the Presiding Officer at the trial on 21-7-2012.