Masveer Ahmed alias Aziz Armed vs Azhar Ali and another
This petition for leave to appeal sought the cancellation of bail granted to Respondent No. 1 by the Peshawar High Court in a case involving offences under Sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner challenged the bail grant, arguing that the High Court's reasoning was unsustainable given the specific evidence, including the recovery of different sets of bullet casings. The Respondent No. 1 contended that he had been on bail for over three years without abusing the concession, that the trial had been significantly delayed without fault on his part, and that the petition was motivated by a desire to pressure him into a compromise regarding a separate criminal matter. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion. The Court held that where an accused has remained on bail for a significant period without misusing the concession or being responsible for trial delays, cancellation of bail is not warranted. The petition was dismissed, with a directive to the Trial Court to ensure the expeditious disposal of the case.
- Is the cancellation of bail justified when an accused has remained on bail for a significant period without misusing the concession?
- Should an appellate court interfere with the discretion exercised by a High Court in granting bail when there is no evidence of misuse of the concession?
- Does the lack of progress in a trial, where the delay is not attributable to the accused, constitute a ground for refusing the cancellation 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 Sections 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, K.P K 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 remained 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 submitted 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 circum stances, leave to appeal is declined and, consequently , the petition is dismissed.
5. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 on his behalf and learned Additio nal 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.