MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs MUHAMMAD SHAM AND Another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking to examine whether the amendment introduced in section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, came into effect immediately without notification by the Provincial Government. Concurrently, the petitioner filed an application for an interim order for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent. The core legal question revolved around the propriety of cancelling bail where commitment proceedings were delayed without the fault of the accused. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that this was not a fit case for the cancellation of bail by an interim order, noting that the respondent had been kept in jail while proceedings were adjourned through no fault of his own. The petition was accordingly dismissed, and the respondent allowed to remain on bail pending the appeal.
- Whether bail granted to an accused can be cancelled by means of an interim order when commitment proceedings are delayed without the fault of the accused?
- Did the amendment sought to be introduced in section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, come into effect immediately without a notification by the Provincial Government?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Law Reforms Ordinance 1972
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD J.- The petitioner has been granted leave to consider the question whether the atnendmect sought to be introduced in section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by item No. 163 of the Schedule to the Law Reforms 0ijv;ance, 1972, should be deemed to have come into effect imme--diately through no late bad been notti6ed by the Provincial Government for the enforcement of the said amendment. He moved an application for the suspension of the order under appeal but this application could not be entertained as the respondent had already been released on bail.
2. The petitioner has now moved an application for interim order for cancellation of bail.
3. Mr. Abdul Aziz Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the respondent has been granted bail on the ground that although more than one year has passed, not much progress has been made in the commitment proceedings. The petitioner has filed uncertified copies of the proceedings before the committing Court and it appears that through no fault of the respondent the commitment proceedings had been adjourned from time to time and the respondent has been kept in jail on that account., After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, wet are satisfied that this is not a fit case in which the bail should bet cancelled by an interim order. The respondent will remain can bail during the pendency of the appeal. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 6 cases
- MUMTAZ ALI Versus State 2008 MLD 1327
- GHULAM ABBAS alias ABASI and others vs THE STATE 2005 PLD Karachi 255
- JUWAN vs THE STATE 2005 YLR 2936
- GUL BEG alias NANGI Versus THE STATE 2005 PCRLJ 147
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL AND Another vs THE STATE 1975 P Cr. L J 1310
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND 7 Other vs THE STATE 1978 PLD Karachi 94