AKHTAR ALI vs AZHAR ALI SHAH And Another
The petitioner, who is the complainant in a criminal case registered under sections 364/34 and subsequently altered to 302/201/220 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought leave to appeal against the Sind High Court's order dismissing an application for the recall of bail granted to the respondent-accused. The respondent had obtained bail from the High Court by allegedly suppressing the fact that his previous bail application had been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge just days prior, and relied on the statutory delay provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court considered contentions regarding the suppression of material facts, the conduct of the respondent in delaying the trial, and the equities involved in granting bail. The Court granted leave to appeal and issued notice to the respondent to show cause why the bail application should not be re-heard due to the suppression of material facts.
- Does the suppression of the recent rejection of a bail application disentitle an accused from seeking equitable relief regarding bail?
- Whether bail granted on the statutory ground of delayed trial can be reconsidered if material facts were suppressed before the court granting bail?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against an order of the High Court declining to cancel bail?
- Section 364, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 220, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner who is the complainant in a case registered at Police Station Daharki, District Sukkur, on 16-12-1979 under section 364/34 P.P.C., altered subsequently to 302/201/220 P.P.C., seeks leave to appeal against an order of the Sind High Court dated 21-2-1984 whereby an application seeking recall of the order admitting the respondent to bail, was dismissed.
2. Though the case was registered in December, 1979 and related to the murder of the father of the petitioner and the respondent-accused, the latter surrendered on 21-10-1981 i.e. After about 22 months. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, rejected his applications for bail on 16-12-1979, 12- 11-1981, 29-10-1983 and 11-2-1984. Three days after he submitted an application for bail in the High Court suppressing the rejection of the bail on 11-2-1984 and got bail on 24-2-1984. He was admitted to bail mainly on the ground that in terms of section 497 subsection (i) of section 498 clause (b) of third proviso Cr.P.C., more than to years had elapsed and the trial had not concluded. The respondent, was not found responsible for the delay The petitioner sought cancellation of the bail but the High Court declined.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suppression of the rejection of the last bail application only three days before making a fresh application disentitled the respondent from seeking an equitable relief. Besides, the delay in the trial had taken place either on account of the respondent or one of his co-accused. He has particularly drawn our attention to 'the fact that after his admission to bail, the respondent has delayed the trial in diverse manners thereby deflecting the course of justice 'and putting the petitioner to great inconvenience who has to travel all the way from Faisalabad to Sukkur and return without any progress being made in the case. We grant leave to appeal.
4. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, notice to issue to the respondent to show cause why in view of suppression of material facts, his application for bail be not ordered to be re- heard. Bail able warrants issuing against the respondent in the sum of Rs.10, 000 with to sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate of the place where the respondent is ordinarily residing.