Case Details

Citation(s)
1974 SLG 3104 = 1974 SLD 3104 = 1974 PLD 181
Lahore High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2 of 1973 in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1970, decided on 18th April 1973.
Presented By:  Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J
Khan Zia-ud-Din assisted by Ch. Eitizaz Hussain for Petitioners. Riaz Anwar for the State.

ZAKAULLAH KHAN AND 3 OTHERS-Appellants

VERSUS

THE STATE-Respondent

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497(1), 426

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Ss. 497(1) & 426-Application for bail at appeal stage-Provisions of S. 497-Helpful as guidelines for deciding application under S. 426-Cases coming within purview of S. 497(1)-Bail can be granted on ground of inordinate delay---Cases within prohi bition of S. 497(1) but covered by rule of inordinate delay -Grant of bail discretionary with Court according to circumstances of case. The provision of section 497, Cr. P. C. would be helpful as one of the guidelines for deciding application under section 426, Cr. P. C. It is now well settled practice of High Court that in cases which are covered by sub-section (1) of section 497 bail can be allowed on ground of inordinate delay. On principle therefore, there is no bar to the grant of suspension of sentence as there has been and is likely to be a delay in the disposal of the appeal for which it cannot be held that the accused are at fault. But at the same time in cases under section 497 which fall within the prohibition contained in subsection (1) thereof and are covered by the rule of "inordi nate delay", it is always discretionary for the Court, in circumstances of each case, to allow or withhold bail. Likewise the facts and circum stances of each case will have to be considered while deciding the question whether pending an appeal or revision sentence should be suspended on, ground of delay.   ORDER This is a petition for suspension of sentence in a transportation matter. It is no doubt true that the petitioners are in custody for the last five years and further that this period includes about three years after conviction under section 302, P. P. C. with sentence of transportation for life. It is also correct that their appeal which was ripe and had actually been fixed for hearing on 5-3-1973 was adjourned for no fault on their part ; because their co-accused, Sattar having been arrested was to be proceeded against for the same offence through commitment and trial proceedings. In other words, the reasons for their appeal not being disposed of is an order passed by this Court and thus it is not only a case of absence of fault on their part but also that the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register