ABDUL RASHID Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE
This matter arises from a petition filed by Abdul Rashid challenging the Lahore High Court order dated 29-8-1975 granting bail to Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Sadiq in a criminal case registered under sections 148 and 307 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing injuries. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in granting bail considering the nature of the injuries and subsequent trial delay. The Supreme Court held that interference with the bail granted by the High Court was not warranted, primarily due to the considerable delay in the completion of the trial where no witness evidence had been recorded since the registration of the FIR on 13th July 1975, without any attributable fault by the respondents. The key principle laid down is that undue and unexplained delay in the commencement or completion of a trial constitutes a justified ground for declining to interfere with the grant of bail.
- Whether delay in the completion of the trial justifies upholding the grant of bail?
- Is interference warranted with a High Court bail order when trial evidence has not commenced?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ, J . ‑‑The petitioner is aggrieved by an order made by the Lahore High Court on 29‑8‑1975, whereby bail has been allowed to the respondents Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Sadiq in a case pending against them under sections 148 and 307149, P.P.C. for causing injuries to the petitioner.
2. The learned Judge in the High Court has allowed bail to the respondents primarily for the reason that the injuries sustained by the present petitioner were simple in nature. It is submitted by the petitioner that the High Court has ignored the fact that the injuries were on the vital parts of the body including the chest and the abdomen, and, therefore, there was clear intention to cause the death of the petitioner.
3. We consider that it is not necessary for us to express any opinion as to the merits of the case at this stage, as we feel that bail appears to be justified on account of the delay that has taken place in the completion of the trial against the respondents. The first information report was registered on the 13th of July, 1975, and so far the evidence of not even a single witness has been recorded by the trial Court. The petitioner was not able to enlighten us as to the reasons for which this delay has occurred. In the circumstances. It would not be proper for us to interfere with the grant of bail as' ordered by the High Court.
4. The petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed.
5. M.A.K./331/A‑SC Leave refused.