FATEH MOHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER
This matter arises from a petition filed by Fateh Muhammad and Nawaz challenging an order of the Lahore High Court dated 5-2-1975, which cancelled the bail previously granted to them by the lower courts. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's exercise of discretion in cancelling bail where the petitioners were specifically charged in the F.I.R. with being armed with guns and causing injuries. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court did not act in an illegal or improper manner in exercising its discretion under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and accordingly dismissed the petition while observing that the petitioners could renew their bail application before the concerned court if the trial is unduly delayed. The key principle laid down is that interference with the High Court's discretionary cancellation of bail is unwarranted absent illegality or impropriety, subject to remedies for delayed trials.
- Whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in cancelling bail?
- Are petitioners entitled to renew their application for bail before the trial court if the trial is unduly delayed?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' ANWARUL HAQ, J.-The two petitioners, Fateh Muhammad and Nawaz, are aggrieved by an order made by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 5-2-1975, whereby bail allowed to them by the lower Courts was cancelled, mainly on the ground that according to the F. I. R. The petitioners were armed with guns and actually used them causing injuries to one Aslam. One pellet was said to be still embedded in his neck.
2. ' It is submitted that although the case was registered as long ago as the 6th of July 1974, but no progress has been made in the trial in spite of the lapse of a period of eight months.
3. As it is not shown that the High Court has acted in an illegal or improper manner in exercising the discretion vesting in it under section 497, Cr. P. C., we see no justification to interfere. We would accordingly dismiss this petition, with the observation that if the trial is unduly delayed, the petitioners would be entitled to renew their application for bail before the Court concerned.
Cited by 1 case
- KHIAL AKBAR vs The State 1979 PLD Quetta 96