JAMIL RAZA @ JEELU vs The STATE and others
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was charged under sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial. The High Court had previously dismissed the bail application, reasoning that the petitioner's role in the offence brought the case within the exceptional clause of the fourth proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the right to release on statutory delay does not arise automatically. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court's order failed to determine which party—the petitioner or the prosecution—was responsible for the delay in the trial's conclusion. Consequently, with the consent of both parties, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh decision. The key principle established is that a court must explicitly determine the responsibility for trial delays when adjudicating bail applications based on statutory delay grounds.
- Does the right to release on bail due to statutory delay in the conclusion of a trial arise automatically upon the expiry of the statutory period?
- Is a court required to determine responsibility for trial delays when adjudicating a bail application based on statutory delay?
- Can an appellate court remand a bail petition to the High Court if the original order failed to address the issue of responsibility for trial delay?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---Petitioner seeks post, arrest bail in case FIR No 835 of 2013; dated 03.11.2013, offence under sections 302, 109, 34, P.P.C., registered at P.S. Bhikhi, District Sheikhupura.
2. We have noted that the learned High Court vide the impugned order dismissed the post arrest bail application, filed by the petitioner or statutory ground, in the following terms:- "3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is behind the bars since 25.11.2013 and that the conclusion of the trial was not possible in near future and the prosecution is solely responsible for delay in conclusion of trial. As far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on statutory delay in conclusion of the trial has not force. As on expiry of statutory period right of release on statutory delay in conclusion of trial does not arise automatically. The specific role attributed to the petitioner reflects that the petitioner had committed the offence in desperate manner, which brings the case of the petitioner within the mischief of the exceptional Clause of the 4th proviso of section 497(1) of Cr.P.C.
4. For the foregoing reasons, circumstances, the petitioner has failed to make out a prima facie case of his enlargement on bail on the ground of statutory delay in conclusion of the trial. This bail petition, therefore, is found to be devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed. "
3. From the tenor of the afore-mentioned order, it is quite clear that the learned High Court while dismissing the bail petition filed by the petitioner on statutory ground has not given any observation/finding to the effect as to who, either the petitioner or the prosecution, is responsible for the delay in conclusion of trial. Confronted with this, the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Law Officer do not join issue and submit that it would be reasonable if the impugned order is A set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned High Court for decision afresh, after hearing both the parties.
4. In this view of the matter, with consent of both the learned counsel, the impugned order of the learned High Court is set aside, Crl. Misc. No, 721-B of 2016 shall be deemed to be pending before the learned High Court for decision afresh, after hearing both the parties and after attending to the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the ground of statutory delay urged by the petitioner. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court on 06.06.2016.
5. Disposed of in terms noted above.
Cited by 2 cases
- Ameer Hamza vs The State, etc 2016 KLR Criminal Cases 299
- AMEER HAMZA vs The STATE and others 2017 P Cr. L J 21