Nisar Ahmed vs The State, etc.
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the High Court's dismissal of the petitioner's fourth post-arrest bail application in a murder case. The petitioner, accused of committing qatl-i-amd and causing injuries under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, argued that he was entitled to bail due to the trial court's failure to comply with previous High Court directions for the expeditious disposal of his trial, and because the complainant had filed a direct complaint, which allegedly constituted a fresh ground. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether non-compliance with trial-expediting directions or the filing of a direct complaint could serve as valid grounds for bail. The Court held that non-compliance with directions to conclude a trial expeditiously is alien to the provisions of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and does not constitute a valid ground for bail. Furthermore, the filing of a direct complaint does not affect earlier final bail-refusal orders unless a genuine fresh ground is established. Consequently, the Court refused leave and dismissed the petition.
- Whether the failure of a trial court to comply with directions for the expeditious disposal of a trial constitutes a valid ground for the grant of bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the filing of a direct complaint by a complainant constitute a fresh ground for re-evaluating successive bail applications that have already been dismissed on merits?
- 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 JAMALI, J. --- Petitioner is one of the nominated accused in crime No. 324/2012, 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 alongwith 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 by 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/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. 4327B/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 ASC 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 non-compliance 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.