BARKAT ALI vs The STATE
The petitioner filed a petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had declined his application for suspension of sentence and release on bail pending his criminal appeal against conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court had instead expedited the hearing of the main appeal, directing that it be fixed within six months. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing bail while expediting the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no illegality or procedural violation, as it refrained from commenting on the merits and reasonably accommodated the petitioner by expediting the trial. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where a High Court expeditiously fixes a criminal appeal for hearing within a short timeframe, the refusal of post-conviction bail pending appeal does not warrant interference by the Supreme Court.
- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing post-conviction bail when it has ordered an early hearing of the criminal appeal?
- Does the refusal to grant bail pending an expedited appeal suffer from any illegality when the High Court expresses no opinion on the merits?
- Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1979 in the High Court of Peshawar against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar dated 4-2-1979 whereby he was convicted under section 302/34, P. P.- C: and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 or in default to undergo further six months' R. I. In that appeal the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 6/79 praying for being released on bail. A Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court by means of their Order dated 4-3-1979 directed that the appeal may be fixed up for hearing within six months from the date of their order. Since a very early hearing of the case had been fixed, therefore, the learned Judges -refused to release the petitioner on bail.
2. The petitioner has come up in a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal against the aforesaid Order, to this Court.
3. Learned counsel argued that his client has a very strong case on merits, and, therefore, the High Court should have released him on bail. The contention has no merit. The High Court has expressed no opinion or the merits of the case and they have rather accommodated the petitioner by directing that his appeal be taken up out of turn within six months. The Order of the High Court does not suffer from any illegality or any violation of law or of procedure on the subject.
4. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.