ASHOK vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the order of the High Court of Sind, which had dismissed the petitioner's bail application based on statutory delay under the 3rd proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court had directed the Trial Court to procure the attendance of the Investigating Officer and conclude the trial within three months. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on statutory grounds due to the non-conclusion of the trial within the Court-mandated timeframe where the delay was not attributable to him. The Supreme Court observed that despite the High Court's explicit direction, the trial remained incomplete, and the petitioner was in no way responsible for the delay. Converting the petition into an appeal, the Supreme Court granted a final one-month extension for concluding the trial, ordering that if the trial was not concluded within that period, the petitioner would be deemed granted bail upon executing the specified surety and personal bonds.
- Whether a delay in concluding a criminal trial not attributable to the accused entitles the accused to statutory bail under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether the Supreme Court can grant conditional deemed bail if the trial court fails to conclude the trial within a specified extended timeframe?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner has called in question, through the above petition, the order of a learned Judge in Chambers of High Court of Sind dated 26-8-1993 whereby the bail was refused to the petitioner on the ground of delay in conclusion of the trial as follows:-- "The trial of the case is almost complete except that I.O. Remains to be examined for which the learned Trial Court is taking all steps to procure his attendance. Bail application in these circumstances merits no consideration and is accordingly dismissed. The learned Trial Court shall procure the attendance of the I.O. And if need be, even issue coercive process against him and complete trial within a period of three months from the date of this order."
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in spite of the above-quoted positive direction by the learned Judge in Chambers, the trial has not been concluded and the petitioner is being denied his statutory right to be enlarged on bail under the 3rd proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Advocate-General, Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, admits that in spite of the expiry of the period of three months fixed by the High Court for conclusion of the trial, the Investigating Officer has not been examined in the case. It is also quite clear from the record before us that the petitioner is not in any way responsible for the delay in conclusion of the trial. The learned Additional Advocate-General, makes a request that one month's the may be allowed to the Trial Court to conclude the case as the Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, could not be examined in the case by the Trial Court, since the files relating to the case were with him. Mr. Mangi positively undertakes that the trial of the petitioner will be concluded under all circumstances by the Trial Court within one month from today.
3. In view of the statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General today in Court, we convert this petition into appeal and dispose of the same as follows:-- "The Trial Court is allowed one month's the to conclude the trial of the petitioner. In case the trial is not concluded within one month from today, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been granted bail in the case on expiry of one month's period and will be enlarged on bail by the Trial Court on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 and personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The appeal stands disposed of, accordingly.
Cited by 10 cases
- Ahmed Khan Solangi and others vs Chairman, National Accountability 2021 P Cr. L J 1161
- ASGHAR ALI Versus State 2019 YLRN 36
- Tallat Ishaq vs National Accountability Bureau through its Chairman, etc. 2019 PLD Supreme Court 112, 2018 P.S.C. (Crl.) 1110
- SAQIB RAZA vs The STATE 2015 MLD 515
- NAZAR HUSSAIN and another vs THE STATE 2012 P Cr. L J 345
- MUREED vs THE STATE 2010 MLD 318
- KHALID ZAMAN KIYANI vs THE STATE 2008 YLR 545
- GHULAM ABBAS alias ABASI and others vs THE STATE 2005 PLD Karachi 255
- JUWAN vs THE STATE 2005 YLR 2936
- MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR BADAR vs THE STATE and others 2003 PLD Supreme Court 525