MUHAMMAD DIN And Another vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court which rejected the petitioners' bail application. The petitioners, accused of an offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, had been detained in jail for more than two years without the hearing of their appeal commencing. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to statutory bail under Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to the delay in the commencement of their appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that despite the High Court's rejection of bail on the ground that the appeal had been fixed for hearing, the continued delay of several months without the hearing actually commencing entitled the petitioners to bail. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and ordered the release of the petitioners on bail subject to furnishing adequate sureties.
- Whether an accused person detained in jail for more than two years without the hearing of their appeal commencing is entitled to bail under Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a bail application under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be rejected solely because the appeal has been fixed for hearing, if the hearing does not actually commence within a reasonable time thereafter?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 426(1-A)(c), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- The petitioners seek leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, dated 9th January, 1985 rejecting their bail application. They are accused, inter alia, of an offence under section 302, P.P.C.
2. They were arrested and are admittedly, in jail for more than two years but the hearing of appeal has not yet commenced. As such they are entitled to grant of bail under clause (1-A)(c) of section 426, Cr.P.C.
3. The learned High Court rejected their application on the ground that the appeal has already been fixed for hearing. That was on 9th January, 1985. But it is now 6th March, 1985, and the hearing has not commenced as yet. In view of this delay we think that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail.
4. We, therefore, convert the petition into an appeal and allow. The petitioners shall be released on bail in the sum of Rs.75,000 with two sureties in the like amount in respect of each of the petitioners to the satisfaction of the A . C .Lahore.