Rana MUHAMMAD ASHIQ and 6 others vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition filed by seven petitioners challenging an order of the Lahore High Court, which declined their application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, despite their statutory appeal not having been disposed of within two years. The core legal question was whether the High Court was legally bound to record reasons when refusing the statutory concession of bail under Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the grant or refusal of bail under the provision is a matter of judicial discretion, the appellate court is mandatorily required to assign reasons for declining bail. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order for lacking reasons, converted the petition into an appeal, suspended the sentence, and granted bail to the petitioners. The key principle laid down is that declining the statutory benefit of bail under Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 requires explicit reasons by the appellate court.
- Does a convicted person become ordinarily entitled to bail if their appeal is not decided within the statutory period under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an appellate court required to assign reasons when declining bail under Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the effect of an appellate court's failure to give reasons while refusing statutory bail pending appeal?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.---Vide Appeal No,831 of 1992, the seven petitioners have challenged their conviction and sentences for offence under section 302/307/149/148, P.P.C. To imprisonment for life, fine etc. Dated 21-9-1992 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot before the Lahore High Court, Lahore. Since appeal filed by them was not disposed of beyond period of two years they approached the High Court for suspension of their sentences and grant of bail in terms of the provisions of section 426(1-A)(C) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their request was turned down on 25-6-1995 by the High Court with simple words as under:- "We had passed orders on 6-11-1994 for the listing of this appeal tor final disposal in the month of April, 1995. This has not been done. The office shall explain the default.
2. Be that as it may, let the main appeal be set down for final hearing on 9-7-1995 and the office shall do whatever needs to be done to ensure the fixation of the main appeal on the said date.
3. In view of the fixation of the main appeal for hearing, this application stands disposed of."
2. Not being satisfied with the above said order the petitioners have come before this Court and sought for leave to appeal.
3. Mr. Ljaz Hussain Batalvi, the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that under section 426(1-A), Cr.P.C. a person under sentence of imprisonment for life etc. Becomes ordinarily entitled to grant of bail if his appeal is not disposed of within a period of two years. If the Appellate Court declines to accede to his request it shouicrrecord its reason for denial. The learned counsel explained that the High Court without assigning any reason denied benefit of statutory concession to the petitioners by directing fixing of the appeal on 9-7-1995, which date too passed without substantive result and the case of the petitioners became furtheestrong.
4. In support of his contentions the learned counsel relied upon:--
(i) 1986 SCMR 1970.
(ii)1991 SCM R 1459.
(iii) 1994 SCM R 480:
(iv) 1995 SCM R 1109.
(v) Cr.P. No,384-L/93, 84-L/95, dated 24-4-1995.
(vi) Cr.P. No,172-L/95, dated 7-6-1995.
5. The learned counsel for the State candidly conceded to the proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. In Criminal Petitions Nos.384-L/93 and 84-L/95 a Division Bench of this Court has taken intensive pains in tracing the legislative history of subsection (1-A) of section 426, Cr.P.C. And compared it with relevant provisions of section 497, Cr.P.C. Then elaborately discussed authorities dealing with subsection (1-A) of section 426, Cr.P.C. Refusing or granting bail. Regarding refusal of bail reference was made to:--
(i) 1 981 SCMR 727.
(ii)1 982 SCMR 357.
(iii) 1 988 SCMR 149.
(iv) 1.994 SCMR 277. In grant of bail: (i) 1 986 SCMR 1970.
(ii) 1991 SCM R 1459.
(iii) 1994 SCM R 480 were considered.
7. The crux of the above said authorities in respect of grant or refusal old bail is discretion of the Court. But in declining to grant bail the Court has to assign reason.
8. In the instant case the High Court indeed has not given any reason. The order thus suffers from infirmity. It cannot be sustained. The ratio enunciated in case Criminal Petition No,172-L of 1995, dated 7-6-1995 by this Court covers the case of the petitioners which entitles them to concession of bail.
9. We are, therefore, inclined to convert the petition into appeal, suspend the sentence of the appellants and order that they to be released on bail, subject C to furnishing sureties to the tune of Rs,1,00.000 '(Rs, one lac) each with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Cited by 3 cases
- Sajid alias Saji vs State, etc. PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 806
- Sajid alias Saji vs The State, etc 2023 LHC 2048
- GHULAM ABBAS Versus STATE 1997 MLD 3222