Pakistan Case LawNIAZ ALI Versus ADALAT HUSSAIN and 3 others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the High Court, which had granted bail to the respondents on statutory grounds. The respondents were arrested on 11-6-1991, and their trial remained unconcluded at the time of the petition. The core legal question concerned whether the respondents were entitled to bail under the statutory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically considering the status of the third and fourth provisos to subsection (1) of section 497 at the time of their arrest and the subsequent legislative changes. The High Court had exercised its discretion to grant bail, relying on the principle that the repeal of an amending enactment does not necessarily affect the continuance of amendments already made. The Supreme Court found no merit in the petitioner's challenge. It held that since the High Court had exercised its discretion appropriately and the third proviso was indeed part of the law at the time of the respondents' arrest, there was no ground to interfere with the High Court's order. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Does the repeal of an amending enactment affect the continuance of amendments made by that enactment?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with a High Court's discretionary order granting bail when the trial has not concluded?
- Does the statutory right to bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply based on the law in force at the time of arrest?
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 22-12-1993, whereby the respondents were admitted to bail on statutory ground.
2.The respondents were arrested on 11-6-1991 and the trial has not yet concluded. They moved a bail application before the trial Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 2-11-1993. The High Court, however, admitted the respondents to bail.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the respondents moved the petition for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, the Ordinance whereby third and fourth provisos to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Were deleted, was in force. The bail application was moved on 20-9-1993. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the application on 2-11- 1993. The learned High Court has relied upon Government of Punjab v. Zia Ullah Khan (1992 SCM R 602), whereby it has been observed that the repeal does not affect the continuance of amendment made by the amending enactment so repealed. In the present case, a discretion has been exercised by the High Court. The trial has not yet concluded, therefore, we are not inclined A to interfere with the discretionary order of the High Court. At the time of respondents' arrest the third proviso was part of section 497, Cr.P.C.
There is no force in this petition. The same is dismissed and the leave prayed for refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Judges on this bench
- Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry1,248 judgments
- Saleem Akhtar1,928 judgments
- Saiduzzaman Siddiqui789 judgments