1970 SCMR 291

BAGH ALI AND 3 Others vs The STATE

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation1970 SCMR 291

CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

Case No.Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 188 of 1969 Cr. Misc. No. 750 of 1969

Date1969-10-27

Judge(s)Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Sajjad Ahmad

Authored byMuhammad Yaqub Ali

ResultLeave refused

AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the refusal of interim bail by the High Court during the pendency of a revision petition challenging the petitioners' conviction and sentences under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether interim bail can be granted to convicted persons whose revision petitions against conviction are pending before the High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that as long as the convictions stand, the detention of the petitioners is lawful, and the grant of bail at that stage is inappropriate. The Court laid down the principle that while bail during a pending revision is generally inappropriate while convictions stand, petitioners may repeat their prayer for bail before the High Court if inordinate delay occurs in the hearing of the revision petition due to heavy arrears.

Questions settled in this judgment

Can interim bail be granted to petitioners whose convictions and sentences are currently standing?
What remedy is available to a convicted person if there is inordinate delay in the hearing of their revision petition due to heavy arrears in the High Court?

Laws & provisions referred

Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860

interim bailcriminal revisionconvictionpendency of appealdelay in trial

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-A revision petition filed by the petitioners against their conviction and sentences of four years' rigorous imprisonment each under section 307, P. P. C. Has been admitted by the High Court, but the prayer for interim bail refused from which they seek leave to appeal.

2. The petition is ill-conceived. So long as their convictions stand the petitioners can make no lawful grievance of their detention in jail. The grant of bail, at this stage, would, therefore, be inappropriate.

3. It is contended that in view of the accumulation of heavy arrears in the High Court the revision petition is not likely to be heard at an early date. In that case the petitioners should repeat their prayer for bail before, the High Court if inordinate delay takes place in the hearing of the revision petition.

4. The petition is dismissed.