GHULAM HAIDER AND Another vs The STATE
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioners by the Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar. The petitioners were facing prosecution under sections 323, 325, and 393 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 34. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the continued detention of the accused was justified given the significant delay in the trial proceedings. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the circumstances, noted that despite the lapse of more than eight months since the registration of the case, not a single prosecution witness had been examined, with adjournments frequently occurring due to the absence of witnesses. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and directed that the petitioners be released on bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to proceed with the trial for a significant period due to the absence of witnesses, such delay constitutes a valid ground for the grant of bail to the accused.
- Does a significant delay in the examination of prosecution witnesses constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
- Can the Supreme Court convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal for final disposal?
- Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 393, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we have decided to convert this petition into an appeal, and to dispose it of accordingly.
2. The two petitioners are facing prosecution under sections 323, 325 and 393 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 34 thereof. They were allowed bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, but the same has been cancelled by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court by his order dated the 3rd of December, 1975.
3. It is submitted by Mr. Talaat Farooq Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioners, that there is previous litigation between the parties, as admitted by the complainant himself in the first information report, that for this reason the petitioners have been falsely implicated, and, that in spite of the lapse of more than eight months since the case was registered against the petitioners, not a single prosecution witness has been examined at the trial. Learned counsel also submits that during the investigation two other persons also accused in the F. I. R. Were found innocent, thus showing that the complainant had brought false allegations against innocent persons and he could not be relied upon even as against the petitioners.
4. It is hardly appropriate for us to comment at this stage on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, but we find that it is indeed correct that in spit of the lapse of more than eight months since the case was registered against the petitioners, not a single prosecution witness has been examined so far. On several dates the case had to be adjourned owing to the absence of the witnesses. In these circumstances, we would accept this appeal and direct that the petitioners be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs. 2,000 with one surety in the like amount in each case to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- AMIR HAIDER Alias ABBAS ALI vs THE STATE- Respondent 1986 P C r. L J 4
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and anothers vs THE STATE 1985 P Cr. L J 2988