Salamat Ali alias Chaima vs The State and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case arising from F.I.R. No. 417 registered under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, contending that he had acquired a statutory right to bail due to delay in recording evidence under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether an accused person can claim statutory bail when the delay in trial is directly attributable to the deliberate obstruction and improper conduct of the counsel retained by the accused. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, by retaining the same counsel and failing to disassociate from such conduct, condoned the obstruction, thereby disentitling himself to discretionary relief or statutory bail under the circumstances. The court dismissed the petition and directed disciplinary proceedings against the counsel through the bar council, laying down the principle that the conduct of an accused's counsel in obstructing judicial proceedings can negate claims for discretionary or statutory bail concessions.
- Can an accused claim statutory bail when trial proceedings are delayed due to the obstructive conduct of the accused's counsel?
- Whether an accused who retains a counsel with improper conduct before the trial court condones such behavior so as to affect bail adjudication?
- Does the right to statutory bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 remain absolute when the accused or his representative actively obstructs the progress of the trial?
- 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.