LIAQUAT ALI And Another vs The STATE
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of lower courts to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioners, who were accused in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of one Faqir Hussain and causing injuries to two other individuals. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to the grant of bail given that they were in custody and the trial had not yet commenced. Upon hearing the arguments presented by the petitioners' counsel, the Supreme Court found no valid grounds to interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower courts in denying bail. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition. However, the Court issued a directive to the prosecution authorities to expedite the necessary steps for holding the trial and expected the trial court to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, emphasizing the need for timely adjudication in criminal matters where the accused remains incarcerated pending trial.
- Does the mere fact that a trial has not yet commenced entitle an accused to the grant of bail?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion of lower courts in refusing bail?
- What is the duty of the prosecution and the trial court regarding the expeditious disposal of a criminal case where the accused is in custody?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The petitioners have been arrested in connection with case under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. Registered against them and 10 others for the murder, on 6-1-1986, of one Faqir Hussain and for causing injuries to Jan Muhammad and Mukhtar Ahmad, P.Ws.
2. As the petitioners are in Jail and the trial has not yet commenced they have been applying to be released on bail but without success and now have come to this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has been heard No ground has been made out for interfering with the discretion of the Courts below refusing to grant bail to the petitioners.
4. This petition must, therefore, fail but we would direct the authorities-in-charge of the prosecution to complete the steps for holding the trial and expect the learned trial Court to dispose it of, as expeditiously as possible.
5. Dismissed, with the above observations.