MANZOOR KHAN vs KAMIR AND 4 Other
This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging an order of a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court granting bail to the respondents. The respondents were charged with murder but had been detained in custody since July 1969 without the inquiry being finalized, despite repeated directions from the High Court. The primary legal issue was whether prolonged detention of under-trial prisoners charged with capital offences justifies the exercise of discretion to grant bail when no concrete steps have been taken to complete the inquiry. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, maintaining the High Court's discretion and holding that the law does not intend to keep under-trial prisoners in custody indefinitely without a satisfactory explanation for the delay. However, the Court observed that if the committing Magistrate finds sufficient grounds to commit the respondents upon concluding the inquiry, the bail may be cancelled and the respondents remitted to custody.
- Whether inordinate delay in finalizing an inquiry justifies granting bail to accused persons charged with capital offences?
- Can bail granted on the ground of delay in inquiry be cancelled if the committing Magistrate subsequently finds grounds to commit the accused to custody?
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.----The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby the respondents who were charged for the murder of the peti--tioner's brothers, Shera and Kamir, were granted bail by him. The learned Single Judge in the High Court has granted bail to them principally on the ground that in spite of the repeated orders by the High Court made first on the 30 of July 1970, and then on the 30th of April 1971, no concrete steps have been taken to finalise the inquiry, with the result that the respondents are in jail since the 6th of July 1969.
2. It is not the intention of the law to keep under-trial prisoners, including those charged with capital offences without trial for inordinately long periods without any satisfactory explanation or reason to justify that action. We do not see any valid ground for interference with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in the High Court in this matter. If, however, on the conclusion of the inquiry, the learned Magistrate finds that it is a case for commitment, the bail allowed to the respondents can be cancelled and they can be committed to custody.
3. With these observations, this petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 13 cases
- MUREED vs THE STATE 2010 MLD 318
- MUMTAZ ALI Versus State 2008 MLD 1327
- WAZIR ALI Versus The State 2005 PLD 201
- GHULAM ABBAS alias ABASI and others vs THE STATE 2005 PLD Karachi 255
- JUWAN vs THE STATE 2005 YLR 2936
- MUHAMMAD ALTAF KHAN vs THE STATE 1984 P Cr. L J 1818
- ABDUL REHMAN AND moms vs THE STATE 1977 P Cr. L J 681
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL AND Another vs THE STATE 1975 P Cr. L J 1310
- NUR AND 6 Others vs THE STATE-- 1975 P Cr. L J 641
- NUR AND 6 OTHERSs vs THE STATE 1975 P Cr. L J 641
- QAMAR DIN vs THE STATE 1975 P Cr. L J 133
- ZAHUR AHMAD AND 3 0/HERS vs TEE STATE 1977 P Cr. L J 47
- FALAK SHER AND Another vs THE STATE 1974 P Cr. L J 448