MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ And Other
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's application for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the Sessions Judge in a case registered under section 307, read with sections 109, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's refusal to cancel bail where the initial grounds for refusing cancellation—namely, the imminent conclusion of the trial and undertakings by the accused—subsequently failed or proved illusory due to the transfer of the magistrate and delays caused by the respondents. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that interference was unwarranted at this stage, but clarified that since the grounds relied upon by the High Court had proved illusory, the petitioner was at liberty to approach the High Court afresh to reconsider its earlier order in light of the new circumstances. The key principle laid down is that where grounds for sustaining a bail refusal or dismissal of bail cancellation become illusory due to subsequent events, the appropriate forum for reconsideration of bail cancellation is the High Court.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of the High Court refusing to cancel bail when the grounds for such refusal have subsequently failed?
- Can a party approach the High Court afresh for bail cancellation if the grounds upon which an earlier cancellation petition was refused have proved illusory?
- Does the transfer of a trial magistrate and subsequent trial delays warrant the interference of the Supreme Court in a bail cancellation matter?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 25-1-1987 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the application of the petitioner for cancellation of bail granted by the Sessions Judge, Sargodha to respondents Nos. 1, 2, and 3 who were involved in a case registered under section 307, read with sections 109 and 149, and section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
2. The learned Single Judge in the High Court who dismissed the application of the petitioner observed that it was highly improbable for the learned Sessions Judge to have admitted the respondents to bail after their bail application had been dismissed on merits by the High Court. He however, declined to interfere with the order fort two reasons: namely:-
(i) The case was at evidence stage and was likely to conclude shortly, and
(ii) the respondents had undertaken that they would make earnest efforts to see that the trial comes to an end quickly and that they would not impede or thwart the trial in any manner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that both these expectations have not materialised. The learned Magistrate who was seized of the case has since been transferred and his successor has not been appointed. Consequently, the hope that the trial would conclude shortly has disappeared.
Apart from that, the conduct of the respondents is such that it was calculated to delay the completion of the trial on one pretext or the other.
3. We do not think this is a fit case for interference by this Court with the order of the learned Single Judge. Since the grounds upon which the learned Judge had refused to cancel the bail of the respondents have proved illusory the petitioner may move the High Court again for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents. It will be of course for the High Court to consider whether in the circumstances now prevailing it would like to reconsider its earlier order. This petition is accordingly dismissed.