NASIR AHMAD vs DIL MUHAMMAD AND 2 Other
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court judgment that refused to cancel the bail granted to respondents in a murder case, primarily because the trial had already commenced. The core legal question was whether the commencement of a murder trial acts as an absolute bar to the cancellation of bail, or if bail can still be cancelled if the accused is obstructing the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that while the commencement of a trial generally makes the cancellation of bail improper due to potential prejudice, it is not an absolute prohibition. The Court affirmed that bail may be cancelled if the accused is hampering or prolonging the trial or attempting to suborn evidence. However, in this specific instance, the Court declined to cancel the bail, finding insufficient evidence that the delay was attributable to the respondents' conduct rather than the trial judge's failure to manage the proceedings efficiently. The Court emphasized that trial judges must adhere to rules requiring the expeditious disposal of murder cases and should utilize provisions like Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to prevent unnecessary adjournments.
- Does the commencement of a murder trial act as an absolute bar to the cancellation of bail?
- Under what circumstances can bail be cancelled after a trial has commenced?
- Is the absence of an accused on medical grounds a sufficient reason to adjourn a murder trial when multiple accused are represented by counsel?
- Section 540-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought front the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 10-11-1981, whereby it declined to cancel the bail earlier granted to respondents Nos. 1 and 2, in a murder case, mainly, because the trial had by then commenced.
2. It is true that the grant or cancellation of bail in a murder case, when the trial has commenced, ordinarily is not considered as proper on account of some prejudicial effects but in proper cases, for example, when the accused is hampering or trying to prolong the trial (or attempts to suborn evidence), it might become necessary to cancel the bail; notwithstanding the accused having a good prima facie case. In this case also the bail could be cancelled on the former ground but for the consideration that we are not satisfied beyond doubt that the delay, which has occurred so far, is due to the conduct of the said respondents. And that it is not due to inexperience or lack of knowledge of the learned trial Judge about how to proceed with the trial in a murder case. He has adjourned the murder trial without sufficient reasons so many times. Mere absence on medical grounds of one or the other accused when they are large in number and are represented by counsel, was by no means an impediment to the continuance of the trial. Section 540-A, Cr. P. C.
3. And other provisions of Cr. P. C. Could be made use of. And we are surprised when noticing several other adjournments, which prima facie, it appears, could be avoided easily. The learned trial Judges should realise that according to the rules and directions on the subject, murder cases, are to be disposed of within a short period of time after completion. This petition with the foregoing remarks is dismissed. One copy each be sent to the learned trial Court and the High Court.
Cited by 3 cases
- Dr. ALI YAHYAH vs THE STATE 1989 P Cr. L J 1652
- MUHAMMAD KHAN vs THE STATE 1985 P Cr. L J 958
- SHAUKAT ALI vs ABDUL HASSAN alias NOOR HASSAN alias HANNAN AND ANOTHER 1984 P Cr. L J 2086