WARYAM AND 3 Others vs THE STATE AND Another
The petitioners, committed to stand trial under sections 148 and 302 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought leave to appeal against the High Court's order setting aside their bail granted by the Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the delay in the trial caused by waiting for commitment proceedings of a co-accused justifies granting bail to the petitioners after commitment. The Supreme Court held that once a person is committed to stand trial, they are not ordinarily entitled to bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as reasonable grounds exist to believe they are guilty of an offense punishable with death or transportation for life. The Court laid down the principle that instead of granting bail on the ground of delay caused by a co-accused, the trial court should either expedite the inquiry against the co-accused or separate their case and proceed with the trial of the petitioners.
- Is a person committed to stand trial ordinarily entitled to bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the delay caused by waiting for commitment proceedings of a co-accused justify granting bail to the petitioners?
- What procedure should a Sessions Judge adopt if the inquiry against a co-accused is likely to be delayed?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The petitioners have been com--mitted to stand trial under sections 148 and 302 read with section 149, P. P. C. They were refused bail by the High Court in the first instance, but the Sessions Judge who was probably not aware of that order allowed them bail inter alia on the ground that the co-accused of the petitioners was arrested after the com--mitment proceedings had been completed and it will take some time to complete the inquiry against him.
2. The High Court has on a petition filed by the private com--plainant set aside the order granting bail from which the petitioner seeks leave to appeal.
3. The order passed by the High Court is in accord with the rule laid down by this Court, that if a person is committed to stand trial he will not ordinarily be entitled to bail under section 497, Cr. P.
4. C., as it cannot be said that no reasonable grounds appear to believe that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life. No extra--ordinary feature to exclude the petitioner's case from this rule was brought to our notice.
5. Mr. Asif Jan urged that as the trial of the petitioners has been postponed to await the completion of the commitment proceedings against co-accused Fazil which will take quite some time, it was a fit case for grant of bail. We do not see why the inquiry against Fazil should not be expedited, but if it is likely to be delayed his case should be separated from the case of the petitioner and the Sessions Judge should proceed with the trial.
6. With these observations the petition is dismissed.