SHAUKAT ALI vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court declining bail to the petitioner in a criminal case involving offences under sections 302, 148, 149, 447, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that it was not inclined to interfere with the discretionary order of the High Court declining bail, but noted the undue delay in the trial. The Court dismissed the petition while issuing a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within three months, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to move the trial court afresh for the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that where a trial is unduly delayed while the accused remains in custody, the appellate court may direct expeditious conclusion of the trial with a liberty to re-apply for bail upon default.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a discretionary order of the High Court declining bail?
- What remedy is available to an accused in custody when the trial is not concluded expeditiously?
- Can an accused move the trial court afresh for bail if the trial is not concluded within the stipulated timeframe?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 447, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 19- 11-1997 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No,742-B of 1997, whereby bail has been declined to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No,164 of 1997, dated 15-6-1997 for offences under section 302/148/149/447/34, P.P.C., registered with Police Station, Sadar, Hasalpur.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to interfere with the discretionary order of the High Court declining bail to the petitioner. We, however, find that the petitioner is in custody since 23rd June, 1997 and no progress has been made in the trial Court. In the circumstances, we direct that the trial shall be concluded within a period of three months from the receipt of this order by the trial Court, failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to move the trial Court afresh for grant of bail. If such an application is moved, the same shall be disposed of by the trial Court on merits without being prejudiced by the observations made in the impugned order of the High Court.
3. With the above observation, the petition is dismissed and .