ABDUL RASHID vs MUSHTAQ ALI AND 3 Other
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the order of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to the respondents on the ground of delay in the commencement of the trial, despite earlier unsuccessful bail applications on merits, including the rejection of one such petition by the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused solely due to prolonged trial delay when their earlier bail pleas on merits had failed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no fundamental error of law or procedure, as the question of bail based on statutory or procedural delay is essentially a matter of judicial discretion, and the trial had not commenced with no reasonable prospect of early conclusion. The key principle laid down is that undue and unconscionable delay in the commencement and conclusion of a trial constitutes a valid ground for the grant of bail, even if earlier bail applications on merits were dismissed, provided the High Court exercises its discretion without committing any fundamental error of law or procedure.
- Whether the High Court can grant bail on the ground of delay in the trial when an earlier bail petition of the accused has already been dismissed by the Supreme Court?
- Is undue delay in the commencement of a trial a valid ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does the grant of bail on the basis of delay involve the exercise of judicial discretion by the High Court?
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.--On 7-3-1977 there took place an occurrence in village Chahur Sikhan in which two persons Nazir Ahmad also known as Muhammad Nazir son of Din Muhammad and Muhammad Yaqub son of Aish Muhammad died whereas four other persons namely Sadiq son of Barkat Ullah, Muhammad Amin son of Sher Muhammad, Muhammad Aslam son of Siddique and Muhammad A.I son of Esa received injuries. About this occurrence two F. I. Rs. Were made, the first in time being that which was made by one Bedar War Inspector of Police, Sangla Hill, who, on the relevant date, was on duty at Sangla Hill where he received the information about this occurrence and reported the same to the police Station far registration of the case; the other F. I. R.
Was Judged by one Abdul Rashid who allegedly had witnessed the occurrence. In the earlier report the accused were (1) Muhammad Ramzan, (2) Shaukat, (3) Hasan, (4) Muhammad A.I and some others whose names were not given. According to the second F. I. R. The accused were (1) Mushtaq A.I, (2) Muhammad Ramzan alias Jars Muhammad and (3) Salim, respondents herein.
It is not necessary to mention the details of the various bail applications filed by the respondents. It will be sufficient to mention that their attempts to secure bail on merits failed in the High Court.
Mushtaq, respondent came to "this Court also in the form of Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 215/78 which was rejected by this Court on 28-6-1978. It appears that later on, all the respondents filed bail applications in the High Court again which were accepted solely on the ground of delay by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court who granted bail to them by means of his Order dated 25-2-1979 passed in Cr. Misc. 4571-B of 1978, No. 2320/B of 1978 and 428/B of 1979.
3. Abdul Rashid the first informant in the subsequent F. I. R. Above mentioned has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the - petitioner has argued that as the bail application of Mushtaq was already rejected by this Court by means of Order dated 28-6-1978, therefore, the High Court thereafter was not justified to grant bail to him. The contention has no merit. As already' mentioned, the bail has been granted to Mushtaq A.I on the ground of delay in the trial which until now has not taken place.
5. Learned counsel then argued that. On merits Muhammad Ramzan alias Jan Muhammad anal Saleem son of Muhammad Sharif, respondents 2 and 3 were also not eligible for being released on bail. As already mentioned the learned Single Judge was aware of the merits of the case but he took due notice of the delay 'which had taken place in the trial which until now has not commenced and about which the learned counsel has not been able to indicate with certainty any definite prospect of its being fixed within any reasonable time. In the circumstances, the question of bail was essentially a matter of discretion for the High Court and we do not think that it-14d- committed any fundamental error-of lave or procedure in granting bail to the respondents.
6. The result is that this petition has no merits and is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- VIK10 vs ABDULLAH AND ANOTHER 1980 P Cr. L J 602