MUSHARAF KHAN vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioner by the Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the High Court erred in cancelling bail after a significant delay of over six months, where the petitioner argued that such an application, treated as a revision under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was time-barred according to the established practice of the High Court requiring filing within 90 days. Furthermore, the petitioner challenged the High Court's interference with the Sessions Judge's valid exercise of discretion in granting bail. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the contentions regarding the limitation period and the propriety of the High Court's interference with the lower court's discretion required further consideration. Consequently, the petitioner was allowed to remain on bail pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
- Is an application for cancellation of bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subject to a limitation period when treated as a revision under Section 439?
- Can the High Court cancel bail granted by a Sessions Judge if the application for cancellation is filed after an inordinate delay?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The petitioner is an accused person under section 302, P.P.C., alongwith to, others in a murder case. He applied for bail before the Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura and the learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated 5-4-1983, admitted him to bail in the sum of Rs.40,000 with to sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Ilaqa/Duty Magistrate.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the complainant Ditta obtained a certified copy of this order on 6-4-1983 but did not proceed to move for the cancellation of his bail until 25-10- 1983 i.e for more than six months. On the said date, he filed an application for cancellation of the bail under section 497 (5) read with section 439, Cr.P.C. In the Lahore High Court at Lahore and a learned Single Judge of the High Court was pleased to accept the said application and to cancel the bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhu--pura to the petitioner vide his order dated 7-12-1983. The petitioner has now moved this Court for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner was in the circumstances referable to the provisions of sections 439, Cr .P.C. Although no limitation is prescribed for filing the revision petition under section 439, Cr.P.C., but the practice of the Lahore High Court is that this must be filed within 90 days. Since the said application was filed long after the said period the same was liable to be dismissed on that short ground. In any case, the learned Sessions Judge had exercised his discretion to admit the petitioner to bail on sound anti proper reasons but the High Court had erred in law in setting aside the discretion of the learned Sessions Judge exercised validly and A properly.
4. These contentions need further consideration. Leave to appeal is granted.
5. The petitioner, who has surrendered himself before us, is allowed to remain on bail on the Bail Bond furnished by him in pursuance of the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura dated 5-4- 1980.
Cited by 1 case
- ZAHID and another vs THE STATE and another 1991 PLD Supreme Court 379