| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1966 SLG 5064 = 1966 SLD 5064 = 1966 PLD 144 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Revision No. 460 of 1965, decided on 15th November 1965.
Presented By: Muhammad Afzal Cheema and Muhammad Gul, JJ
Faqir Singh v. Emperor A I R 1938 Lah. 697 distinguished. Ch. Nazir Ahmad for Petitioners. Shamim Ahmad Mirza for A.-G. for the State. S. J. H. Rizvi for the Complainant.
Criminal Revision No. 460 of 1965, decided on 15th November 1965.
Presented By: Muhammad Afzal Cheema and Muhammad Gul, JJ
Faqir Singh v. Emperor A I R 1938 Lah. 697 distinguished. Ch. Nazir Ahmad for Petitioners. Shamim Ahmad Mirza for A.-G. for the State. S. J. H. Rizvi for the Complainant.
Rana BASHIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER---Petitioners
VERSUS
THE STATE---Respondent
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 498,497
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 498-Offence punishable with death or transportation for life-Court, nonetheless, has discretion to allow bail-Grant or refusal depends on circumstances of, each case-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302. Emperor v. Kishan Gopal AIR 1933 Lah. 925; Khalid Saigol v. The State P L D 1962 S C 495 and Maung Ba Maung v. Emperor AIR 1930 Rang. 335 ref. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 497 & 498 Bail in murder case-Delay in conclusion of trial-Relevant factor in considering question of bail-Delay per se, however, would rarely be considered sufficient ground for grant of bail-Each case to be decided in light of its own facts and circumstances Accused partly responsible for occasioning delay-Bail refused Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302. Where the question was whether in a case of murder delay in conclusion of trial would be a relevant factor in considering the question of bail and secondly whether delay per se would be a sufficient ground for the grant of bail: Held, delay in all cases including those of murder would be a relevant consideration for allowing bail and in certain circum stances may per se be a good ground for such a purpose. No inflexible rule of universal application, however, can be laid down regardless of the facts of each case.. In murder cases, delay of course inter alia would be a relevant consideration, but it would be very rarely that it could be considered per se a sufficient ground though such a situation cannot be altogether excluded. Then again the amount of delay, its causes and responsibility would also be very relevant considerations. Where, therefore, the accused themselves had also contributed to some extent to the delay inevitably caused in the conclusion of the trial though they were riot solely responsible for it, the Court refused to grant bail. Emperor v. Wahidino and others 30 Cr. L .J 845 and Gushtasab Khan v. The Crown P L D 1956 F C 117 ref. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 498-Supreme Court in seizin not of main case, but only of a collateral issue in case Jurisdiction of High Court to grant bail-Not affected. …