MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND Another vs The STATE
This petition for special leave to appeal was filed against an order of the High Court, Lahore, which refused bail to the petitioners following their conviction by a Section 30 Magistrate under sections 326/34 and 323/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a five-year rigorous imprisonment sentence. The petitioners' appeal was admitted for hearing, but bail was denied. The core legal question was whether the High Court exercised its discretion judicially in refusing bail, given the potential for the petitioners to serve a significant portion of their sentence before the appeal is heard due to court congestion. The Supreme Court held that the High Court did not exercise its discretion improperly, as there was no reason to believe the appeal would not be disposed of within a reasonable timeframe. The Court affirmed that criminal appeals should generally be resolved within one to two years. Consequently, the petition was dismissed on merits, though the Court granted the petitioners liberty to re-apply for bail to the High Court if the appeal remains pending after one year.
- Does the mere congestion of court work justify the grant of bail to a convict pending appeal?
- Can a convict re-apply for bail if their appeal remains pending beyond a specified period?
- Is the refusal of bail by the High Court after admitting an appeal subject to interference if discretion was exercised properly?
- Section 326, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an order of the High Court, Lahore, refusing bail to the petitioners who have been convicted by a Section 30 Magistrate under sections 326/34 and 323/34, P. P. C. And sen--tenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment under section 326/34, P. P. C. The appeal of the petitioners has been admitted for hearing and directed to be heard at Bahawalpur Circuit.
2. Learned counsel appearing in support of the petition con--tends that the High Court did not exercise its discretion judicially in refusing bail after admitting the appeal because having regard to the present congestion of work in the High Court, by the time, this appeal comes on for hearing, the petitioners will have served out practically the whole of their sentence.
3. This petition is barred by 14 days and the reason given for the delay is that the petitioners' brother who was looking after this case had a mild heart-attack for which he was advised three weeks complete rest. In support of this illness a medical certificate is also filed.
4. If there have been any merit in this application for special leave we might have on this ground condoned the delay, but we are satisfied that this application must fail on merits. The petitioners have been sentenced to five years' rigorous imprison--ment and there is no reason to think that their appeal will not be disposed of much before the expiry of their term of sentence. We have no reason to doubt that the High Court will give priority to these short sentence cases as, normally, criminal appeals should be disposed of within a year or two. In the circumstances, we are not in a position to say that the High Court exercised its discretion improperly in refusing bail. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed on merits. But, if the appeal is not disposed of within one year the petitioners will be at liberty to apply again to the High Court for bail.
Cited by 2 cases
- MURAD BUX Versus State 2016 YLRN 36
- ZAKAULLAH KHAN AND 3 Other vs THE STATE 1974 PLD Lahore 181