Pakistan Case Law
1985 SCMR 1509

ABDULLAH vs THE STATE And Another

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1985 SCMR 1509
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Appeal No. K-1 of 1980 Appeal No. K-48 of 1979
Date1980-01-07
Judge(s)Dorab Patel and Muhammad Haleem
Authored byDorab Patel
ResultBail granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal arose from a murder trial where the petitioner had been in custody as an under-trial prisoner since July 1976. After nearly three years in custody, the Sessions Judge granted him bail on 25-4-1979, which was subsequently set aside by the Sindh High Court on 9-9-1979. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner sought bail on the merits and on the ground of unconscionable delay, relying on the amendments made to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the Code of Criminal Procedure Amending Ordinance 71 of 1979. The Supreme Court observed that even after excluding the delay caused by five adjournments requested by the petitioner, he had remained behind bars for more than two and a half years without any assurance of when the trial would conclude. The Court held that such an unconscionable delay, not attributable to the accused, constitutes a valid ground for bail. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, the High Court's order was set aside, and the petitioner was released on bail.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether an under-trial prisoner is entitled to bail on the ground of unconscionable delay if the trial has not concluded for over two and a half years?
  • How should the court calculate the period of delay for the purposes of bail when some adjournments were requested by the accused?
  • Can bail be granted under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution cannot provide any assurance as to when the trial will be heard?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
  • Code of Criminal Procedure Amending Ordinance 71 of 1979
post-arrest bailstatutory delayunder-trial prisonerunconscionable delaymurder trial

ORDER

1. DORAB PATEL, J.--The petitioner is being tried with to other accused for murder in the Sessions Court, Hyderabad, and the learned Advocate-General admitted that the petitioner had been arrested in July, 1976. After he had been in custody as an under-trial prisoner for about three years, he was released on bail by the Sessions Judge on 25-4-1979. However, the order of the learned Sessions Judge was set aside by a learned Judge of the Sind High Court on 9-9-1979. Hence this petition for leave.

2. Mr. Hayat Junejo challenged the impugned order on merits. He also submitted that the petitioner was entitled to bail on the ground of delay alone, and in this connection he further relied on the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure Amending Ordinance 71 of 1979, by which section 497 had been amended.

3. We had given notice yesterday to the Advocate-General, because we were disturbed by the gross delay in the hearing of the case and after examining the order sheet produced by Mr. Hayat Junejo, the learned Advocate-General admitted that the petitioner had been in custody for much more than to years. He further drew our attention to the fact that the hearing of the case had been delayed on five occasions at the instance of the petitioner. That is true, but even if the periods for which the case was adjourned at the petitioner's request are excluded, the petitioner has been behind bars for more than to and a half years. Yet the learned Advocate-General is not able to give any assurance as to when the case would be heard. We are, therefore, satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to bail, because the delay in the hearing of the case, which is not due to his fault, is unconscionable. Accordingly after hearing the learned Advocate-General, we have converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned order and released the petitioner on bail. Bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 with to sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court, Hyderabad.

Cited by 16 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.