ANWAR KHAN vs The STATE

1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMADJ.-This petition for Special Leave to Appeal is directed against Order of the High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4552/B of 1976 dated 26-1-1977. By this Order the bail application of the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The occurrence took place on 29-9-74. Abdul Aziz the first informer alleged that the petitioner alongwith four other persons, armed with deadly weapons, attacked the complainant, as well as some others which resulted is the death of Altaf Hussain and simple injuries were caused to Hasan Muhammad, Muhammad Bakhsh P. Ws. And Abdul Aziz complainant. The allegation against the petitioner is that he gave a hatchet blow, on the head vital part of the body, of the deceased which resulted in his death. The petitioner's case is that he sustained 12 injuries, and the other co-accused Iftikhar and Ghulam Nabi also sustained some injuries. According to him, he had a right of self- defence, and he should have been released on bail like other accused persons.

3. The learned Chief Justice of the High Court in his Order under consideration has observed that it appears to be a case of sudden fight between the parties, and each person was responsible for his individual act. It is clearly alleged in the F. I. R. That Anwar Khan petitioner gave fatal blow to Altaf Hussain deceased by a hatchet. The injury was found by the doctor to be dangerous to life. It was on account of this that the deceased died. On these facts it appears to us that the learned Chief Justice was perfectly justified in rejecting the bail application.

4. Mr. Shahid Hussain Qadri, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the plea of self- defence should be considered at this stage. According to him, the aggressor party was of the deceased, and, therefore, the petitioner should be released on bail. The learned counsel referred to a decision of y ' the Lahore High Court given by the learned Chief Justice in 1973 Law Notes Lah. 536 and contended that in this case the plea of self-defence was taken into consideration. In our opinion this contention is not well founded. Without any evidence on the record it is not possible to raise any prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. This contention, therefore, fails.

5. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a delay of about 3 years and, therefore, the petitioner should be released on this ground. In our opinion, mere delay is no ground to grant bail. Under the present law, the committal proceedings have been abolished and murder cases are to be tried by the Sessions Judge. There would be,, thus large number of cases pending in the Court and delay in these cases is likely to occur. In these, circumstances, if accused persons are released on bail on this ground, it will have bad repercussions on the public.

6. In spite of this, we would, direct the trial Court to expedite the disposal of the case.

7. Subject to the above remarks, the petition is dismissed.