MUHAMMAD KHAN vs ATAULLAH AND Other
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order granting bail to respondents accused of murder, primarily on the ground of delay in commitment proceedings. The petitioner argued that for offences punishable by death or life imprisonment, delay alone does not warrant bail, citing precedent. The Supreme Court affirmed the principle that delay in itself is insufficient to justify the grant of bail, emphasizing that the nature of the delay and the circumstances causing it must be examined. However, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's discretion in this specific instance, noting that the commitment proceedings were nearing completion with only three formal witnesses remaining. The Court held that it was appropriate to await the conclusion of these proceedings, clarifying that if the respondents are committed for trial, the Magistrate retains the authority to consider the cancellation of bail in accordance with the law. The petition was disposed of with these observations, maintaining the existing bail order while preserving the right to seek cancellation upon commitment.
- Does delay in commitment proceedings by itself justify the grant of bail in cases involving offences punishable with death or life imprisonment?
- What factors must be examined when considering delay as a ground for bail in serious criminal cases?
- Can a Magistrate consider the cancellation of bail once commitment proceedings are finalized?
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-The petitioner, Muhammad Khan, whose brother Gul Muhammad was murdered, is aggrieved by the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court dated the 2nd of May 1973, whereby bail has been allowed to respondents Ataullah and Ghulam Hussain, mainly on account of delay in the completion of commitment proceedings.
2. It is submitted that the respondents being accused of an offence punish--able with death or transportation for life, were not entitled to be enlarged on bail even though they had been in custody for a year and a half, and the commitment proceedings had not been finalised. Relying on In re: Riasat A.I v. Ghulam Muhammad (PLD 1968 SC 353), the learned counsel submits that delay by itself is not a good reason for allowing bail in such cases.
3. We agree that delay by itself would not justify the grant of bail. I would be necessary, as laid down in the case of Riasat A.I referred to by the learned counsel, to examine the nature of the delay and the circumstance that have caused it. Now, in the instant case it is possible that a different view could be taken on this account but we are not inclined to interfere at this stage with the discretion exercised by the High Court as we are informed that commitment proceedings are nearing completion and the evidence of only three formal witnesses remains to be recorded. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to await the result of these pro--ceedings. If the respondents are committed for trial, it shall be open to the learned Magistrate to consider the cancellation of their bail in accordance with law.
4. With these observations, the petition is disposed of.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDUL REHMAN AND moms vs THE STATE 1977 P Cr. L J 681