SEER ZAMAN vs MUHAMMAD AZAD AND Another
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the complainant Sher Zaman against the grant of bail to the respondent Muhammad Azad by the High Court in a case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting post-arrest bail on the ground of a protracted period of incarceration and delayed trial. The Supreme Court held that the discretion exercised by the High Court in releasing the accused on bail after prolonged detention and anticipated trial delay was neither illegal nor perverse. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the bail granted to the accused.
- Whether prolonged incarceration without the prospect of an early trial constitutes sufficient ground for granting post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- When can the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court in granting bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
1. QAISAR KHAN, J.-On the 12th of August 1975 at about 7 a. m. Saudagar was fired upon and injured on his leg in his field in village Gunj of the Chauntra Police Station of Rawalpindi Tehsil. His son Sher Zaman reported the matter the same day at 7 p.m. In Police Station Chauntra distant 6 miles from the spot charging Muhammad Azad for firing at his father Saudagar. A case under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code was registered. Muhammad Azad was arrested in this case. Saudagar expired in the hospital on the 19th of October 1975 and the case registered was altered to one under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
2. Muhammad Azad accused approached the Court of Session for bail but his petition was dismissed.
3. He then approached the High Court twice for his release on bail but his petitions were dismissed on merits. For the third time he again approached the High Court for his release on bail and a learned Single Judge by his order dated the 19th of February 1972 admitted him to bail. The reason given by the learned Judge was that the petitioner had been in jail for 28 months and that there was no likelihood of his trial for a year and three months.
4. Sher Zaman the complainant has filed this petition for special leave to appeal against the aforesaid order of the High Court requesting for cancellation of the bail'
5. After hearing Sardar Muhammad Ishaq, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Agha Aziz Ahmad, learned Advocate for Muhammad Azad respondent No. 1 we have come to the conclusion that there is no merit in this petition. The discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in the High Court for releasing the accused on bail cannot be said to be illegal or perverse in view of the
Cited by 7 cases
- SAJAHID GUL vs The CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU NAB 2017 PLJ Peshawar 249, 2017 MLD 353
- KHALID vs The STATE 2014 P Cr. L J 437
- NAIMAT KHAN vs The STATE 2013 P Cr. L J 1162
- GHULAM ABBAS alias ABASI and others vs THE STATE 2005 PLD Karachi 255
- JUWAN vs THE STATE 2005 YLR 2936
- FAIZ RASOOL vs The STATE 1979 SCMR 67
- SAJAHID GUL vs CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU, ISLAMABAD 2017 PLJ Peshawar 249