JAMIL AHMED vs THE STATE AND Another
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of a learned Single Judge of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court, which had granted bail to the second respondent in a criminal case involving charges under Section 302/307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner challenged the grant of bail, arguing that the charge involved murder. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the petition was filed with a delay of more than one hundred days. The petitioner attempted to justify this significant delay by claiming he was a minor and lacked understanding of the legal implications of the bail order. The Court found this explanation unsatisfactory, particularly because the petition failed to disclose when the petitioner became aware of the legal implications of the impugned order. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition primarily on the grounds of being time-barred, without addressing the merits of the bail grant itself. The decision reinforces the principle that a petition for leave to appeal must be filed within the prescribed limitation period and that inadequate explanations for substantial delays will not be accepted.
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed solely on the ground of being time-barred?
- Is a claim of minority and lack of legal understanding a sufficient ground to condone a delay of over one hundred days in filing a petition?
- Does a failure to disclose when a petitioner became aware of the legal implications of an impugned order affect the court's consideration of a delay?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. DORAB PATEL, J.-This petition for leave has been filed against an order of a learned Single Judge of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court dated 16-10-1976 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the second respondent's application for bail pending his trial under section 302/307/34, P. P. C.
2. The impugned order is challenged on the ground that the charge against the second respondent is for murder, therefore, we have examined the impugned order and the learned Single Judge allowed bail inter alia on the ground that the deceased had only been given fist blows by the petitioner and/or others and that the fatal blow also was only a fiat blow. As the petitioner has not supplied a copy of the post-mortem, we enquired about the precise nature of the fatal injury and we were informed that the fist blow had ruptured the spleen of the deceased. Be this as it may, the petition is time-barred by more than one hundred days and the only explanation for the delay is that the petitioner was a miner, therefore, he wall not able to understand the implications of the order granting bail. We are not impressed by this explanation the more so as tae petition does not disclose when and the petitioner had relied tile legal implication of the impugned order, the petition is dismissed as time-barred. 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.