SHER MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN TAREEN And Other
This appeal, by leave, challenges an order passed by a Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court granting bail to the respondent on medical grounds. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the bail granted by the High Court should be cancelled, particularly given that the trial proceedings had already commenced. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the bail order at this stage. Relying on the principle established in Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 1989 SC 585), the Court held that once a trial has commenced, it is generally improper for an appellate court to cancel bail, as determining the merits at this juncture could prejudice the ongoing trial. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with a direction to the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously without undue adjournments. The Court further clarified that the appellant retains the right to apply for bail cancellation before the trial court should the respondent attempt to delay the proceedings, thereby ensuring the trial's integrity while maintaining the status quo regarding the respondent's liberty.
- Is it appropriate for an appellate court to cancel bail once the trial has commenced?
- Can an appellate court decline to cancel bail while directing the trial court to expedite proceedings?
- Does an appellant retain the right to seek bail cancellation if the respondent delays the trial?
ORDER
NAIMUDDIN, J.---This appeal, by leave, is from the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 4-9-1989 granting bail to the respondent on medical ground. It is stated at the Bar that the trial has commenced. In such a circumstance, normally, the appellate Court does not consider proper to cancel the bail granted by the lower Court. In the case of Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another, PLD 1989 SC 585, our brother Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J. (as his Lordship then was) while expressing the opinion of the Court on the above point, observed as follows:-- "However, the above-stated position notwithstanding, after hearing the learned counsel we feel that this appeal merits to be dismissed. Firstly, if the merit points involved herein are determined, the very practice relied upon by the learned counsel will go against the appellant. The trial is to commence within a fortnight; hence cancellation of bail at this stage would not be proper."
Therefore, we would dispose of this appeal with the observation that the trial Court will conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and without any undue or long adjournments.
2. We have refrained from giving a decision on merits of the case lest any of our observations may prejudice the case of either party.
3: We may further add that if the respondents try to delay the trial in any manner, the appellant shall be entitled to apply to the trial Court for cancellation of the bail according to law. '"
Cited by 2 cases
- ZEESHAN AHMED vs THE STATE and anothers 2012 P Cr. L J 700
- NASEERUDDIN vs ALI QADIR ABBAS and another 1993 P Cr. L J 1684