NISAR AHMED vs The STATE and others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioner's fourth post-arrest bail application by the Lahore High Court in a criminal case involving charges of murder and causing injuries. The petitioner, accused of qatl-i-amd and other offenses, sought bail primarily on the grounds of the trial court's failure to comply with previous High Court directions for expeditious disposal of the case and the subsequent filing of a direct complaint by the complainant. The core legal question was whether the delay in trial or the filing of a direct complaint constituted sufficient grounds for granting bail after previous bail applications had been dismissed. The Supreme Court held that neither the non-compliance with directions for an expeditious trial nor the filing of a direct complaint provides a valid legal basis for bail under the statutory framework. The Court affirmed that such grounds are alien to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and dismissed the petition, emphasizing that bail cannot be granted absent a fresh, valid ground when previous refusals have attained finality.
- Does the failure of a trial court to conclude a trial within a specified timeframe constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
- Can the filing of a direct complaint serve as a fresh ground to reconsider a bail application that has previously been dismissed?
- Is non-compliance with directions for expeditious trial a recognized ground for bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALL J.--Petitioner is one of the nominated accused in crime No.324 of 2012, dated 08.12.2012, P.S. Shahkot, District Sahiwal, registered under sections 302, 324, 337- A(i), 337- A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 148, 149, PPC with the allegations that he along with nine other co-accused, while forming an unlawful assembly, committed qatl-i-amd of Yasir Abbas and caused injuries to three other persons. The petitioner was assigned specific role of causing fatal injury to the deceased.
2. The petitioner was arrested on 14.1.2013 and since then he is stated to be in custody. The first bail application moved him before the Lahore/High Court, being Criminal Miscellaneous No.2148-B of 2014, was dismissed on 04.6.2014; his second bail application, being Criminal Miscellaneous No.1735-B/2015 was dismissed vide order dated 15.5.2015 and the third bail application, being Criminal Miscellaneous No.3819-B of 2015, was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 29.6.2015.
In this manner, as it appears from the case record, Criminal Misc. No.4327-B/2015 was the fourth bail application, which was dismissed by the High Court " through the impugned order dated 29.7.2015.
3. We have heard the arguments of learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner. He has contended that the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail, as compliance of the directions issued by the High Court in its orders dated 04.6.2014 and 15.5.2015, regarding expeditious disposal of the criminal case against the petitioner, has not been made and further filing of direct complaint by respondent. No.2 has furnished a fresh ground to the petitioner to move another bail application.
4. We have scanned the material placed on record and are unable to subscribe to such submissions of the learned ASC. Neither noncompliance of the directions issued to the trial. Court to conclude the trial expeditiously or within some specified time can be considered as valid ground for grant of bail to an accused, being alien to the provisions of section 497, Cr.P.C, nor filing of direct complaint will have any bearing as regards earlier bail refusing 'orders, which have attained finality, unless some fresh ground could be shown by the petitioner for consideration of his request for grant of bail afresh, which is lacking in the present case.
5. This being the position, leave is refused and this petition is dismissed.