Masveer Ahmed alias Aziz Ahmed vs Azhar Ali and another
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner seeking the cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 1 by the Peshawar High Court in a criminal case registered under sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's discretion in granting bail to the respondent should be interfered with, given the petitioner's contention that the respondent's involvement was substantiated by evidence recovered from the crime scene. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order, holding that the respondent had remained on bail for over three and a half years without any allegation of misuse of the concession or responsibility for trial delays. The Court emphasized that the cancellation of bail is an extraordinary measure and is not warranted where the accused has not abused the concession of bail and where the trial has been significantly delayed without fault on the part of the accused. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with a directive to the Trial Court to ensure expeditious disposal of the case.
- Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the discretion exercised by a High Court in granting bail when the accused has remained on bail for a significant period without abusing the concession?
- Does the absence of trial delay attributable to the accused justify the refusal to cancel bail?
- Is the cancellation of bail appropriate when there is no evidence that the accused has misused the concession of bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
QAZI FAEZ ISA, J. Through this petition, petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 1 by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar vide judgment dated 16th March, 2015 in case FIR No.567 dated 1st August, 2014 registered for offences under sectio ns 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Khazana, District Peshawar .
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that three persons were nominated for causing injuries to three persons, namely; Masveer , Baseer Ahmed and Musam Khan, therefore, the reasons which prevailed with the learned judge of the High Court in grantin g bail was not sustainable particularly as different sets of bullet casings were recovered from the crime scene.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General, KPK supports the petition. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 states that the said respondent has been on bail for over three years and despite submission of challan in the month of November , 2015 the charge has still not been framed. He further states that the delay in the commencement and conclusion of the trial has not been attributed to respondent No. 1 nor to the co-accused Zulfiqar , who was arrested in the month of November , 2015 nor have they abused the concession of bail in any manner . The objective of the present petition, according to the learned counsel, is to pressurize the respondent No. 1 and his family to compromise the criminal case in which the respondent No. l's father was murdered and wherein the father of the petitioner has been nominated as an accused, and who has rema ined an absconder therein. The petitioner too has become an absconder in another criminal case. He concludes by stating that the co-accused Zulfiqar had also secured bail and the application for cancellation of his bail subm itted before the High Court was dismissed in default on 13th April, 2018 and no step taken to resurrect the application nor has the said dismissal order been assailed before this Court.
4. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned High Court particularly as respondent No. 1 has remained on bail for over three and a half years and it is not alleged that he has been responsible for the delay or misused the concession of bail in any manner . Under such circumstances, leave to appeal is declined and, consequently , the petition is dismissed.
5. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 on his behalf and learned Additional Advocate General, KPK on behalf of the State undertake that no unnecessary adjournments will be sought in the pending trial. The Trial Court should therefore ensure the expeditious disposal of the case which is an old one.