MUBARAK AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, which had dismissed the petitioners' application for post-arrest bail in a murder case. The petitioners, facing charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought bail primarily on the grounds of inordinate delay in the committal proceedings, noting that no witnesses had been examined despite the passage of fourteen months. The Supreme Court considered whether the delay in proceedings, caused by the failure of jail authorities to produce the accused for hearings, warranted the grant of bail. The Court held that since the delay was not attributable to the Magistrate but rather to administrative lapses in prisoner escort, bail was not immediately justified. Instead, the Court directed the jail authorities to ensure the production of the petitioners at future hearings and ordered the Magistrate to conclude the committal proceedings within six months. The Court established the principle that administrative delays in prisoner production do not automatically entitle an accused to bail, provided that procedural directions can remedy the underlying cause of the delay.
- Does a delay in committal proceedings caused by the failure of jail authorities to produce the accused automatically entitle the accused to bail?
- Can the Supreme Court issue specific directions to jail authorities and trial courts to expedite committal proceedings instead of granting bail?
- Is it appropriate to grant bail when the delay in trial is not attributable to the fault of the Magistrate?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' WAHEEDDUDIN AHMAD, J.-The petitioners are facing commitment proceedings in the Court of learned Civil Judge and First Class Magistrate, Shikarpur, in respect of offences alleged to have been committed by them under section 302/307/148/147, P.P.C. It is alleged that as a result of an incident which occurred on the 21st June, 1973, one Gul Mohammad lost his life as a result of fire- arm injuries. Behram and Sharahat also sustained serious gunshot injuries, in the said incident.
2. ' The petitioners moved an application for bail under section 49S, Cr. P. C. Before the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi. The sole ground on which the bail was sought is that there has been no progress in the committal proceedings and not a single witness has been examined. It was stated that the petitioners were challaned almost a year back. A learned Single Judge of the High Court considered the bail application of the petitioner and dismissed it by order dated the 10th June, 1974.
3. A direction was issued to the Civil Judge and First Class Magistrate, Shikarpur before whom the committal proceedings are pending, to take necessary steps to ensure the attendance of the petitioners before him and further to take all possible steps for the early completion of the committal inquiry. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said order.
4. Mr. M. I. Memon, learned Advocate-on-Record, for the petitioners, has contended that the committal proceedings are pending for the last 14 months and no progress has been made in spite of the directions issued by the High Court. He, therefore, contended that this was a fit case in which this Court should interfere and grant bail to the petitioners. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. It is true that the case has made no progress but this is not on account of any fault on the part of the Magistrate. The petitioners could not be produced before the Magis trate as there was no arrangement with the jail authorities to escort them under proper guard. In our opinion, in these circumstances it would be sufficient if a direction is issued to the Jail authorities to produce the petitioners before the Magistrate on the day of the hearing of the commitment proceedings. We would further direct the Magistrate concerned to dispose of the committal proceedings within six months from the date of this order. In case, the commitment proceedings are not completed within this time, It will be open to the petitioners to move the High Court for bail, Subject to this remark, the petition is dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- Sh. SIRAJ DIN Und Other vs WAPDA Through Its CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN, LAHORE K.L.R. 2000 Civil Cases 344
- Sh. SIRAJ DIN, vs WAPDA through Chairman, Lahore, Pakistan and 2 others 2000 YLR 849