1307/2015 Cr.Bail MUHAMMAD IQBAL S/O MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)

Sindh High Court2015

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar

Share on WhatsApp
1307/2015 Cr.Bail MUHAMMAD IQBAL S/O MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent) Sindh High Court Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar Order Date: 23-DEC-15 (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(1)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---Qatl-i-amd---Bail, refusal of---Statutory delay---FIR had fully implicated the accused, and complainant was the real brother of his wife---Wife of the accused had not disputed the contents of the FIR---Police had already recovered the knife used in commission of the offence of slaughtering ?? years old innocent daughter---Accused, having been immediately arrested from the place of occurrence, had even confessed his guilt---Truth had come on record when the complainant, at the spur of the moment, had recorded the true facts of the offence committed by the accused in the FIR with all genuineness and natural course of events uninfluenced by the consequences of true facts of the case against the accused---Discretion to grant bail was not supposed to be uncontrolled and unreasonable, and the court had to see the circumstances in which the delay had taken place---High Court had already given specific directions to the Trial Court and prosecution as to conclusion of the trial, which had not been strictly complied with---Delay in the proceedings of trial, at times, were wilfully and deliberately contributed by the complainant side with connivance of the prosecution---Benefit of delay, in given circumstances of the case, might not be attributed to the accused directly; however, the conscious efforts of complainant and prosecution in sharing the burden of delay could not be ruled out---Bail application was, therefore, dismissed accordingly. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 497 (1)---Bail on ground of statutory delay---Scope---Interpretation of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Delay in trial is though a valid ground for seeking bail; however, in the name of statutory delay, the court is not supposed to give up its sacred duty of careful examination of the facts and circumstances of the case before exercising the discretion in favour of the accused for grant of bail---In every case, the court is not supposed to rely on the circumstances in which delay in trial has been caused by the accused or the prosecution and decide the fate of bail application on mathematical calculations; other factors cannot be simply ignored---Prime duty of the court in bail matters, is to see that there are "reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has been guilty" or not----Use of the words 'shall not' in S. 497, Cr.P.C. to deny bail is mandatory in cases where reasonable ground exist for believing the guilt of the accused---Word 'shall' in the third proviso of S. 497, Cr.P.C. to release the accused on ground of being in detention for continuous period of two years even in absence of conditions mentioned in the fourth proviso would not take away to undermine the duty of the court to examine the other attending circumstances and evidence connecting the accused with offence to the extent of 'reasonable belief' against him---Word 'shall' in the third proviso has lost its mandatory command for two reasons: firstly, the proviso to any section in an enactment cannot be interpreted to render the effect of the main section null and void, such as the limited discretionary power of court for grant of bail in non-bailable offences; and, secondly, the use of word 'shall not' in S.497, Cr.P.C has made it mandatory for court to check reasonable ground for believing or not believing in the guilt of accused before releasing anyone on bail. (c) Interpretation of statutes---- ----When the provision of law is couched in negative terms and places an embargo on court then a strict view is required to be taken.
Full judgment text for this case is not yet available on Pakistan Law Reports. Check the official Sindh High Court case law portal for the complete order.
This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error, let us know.

Related judgments

Red Notices against Foreign National Proclaimed Offender

PLJ 2024 Karachi 138 (DB) · Sindh High Court · 2024

Judgment on Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act 2012

PLJ 2023 Karachi 124 (DB) · Sindh High Court · 2023

Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act 2013 explained in a Judgment

PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 154 · Sindh High Court · 2022

Article 140- Cross Examination of a Witness

PLJ 2020 · Sindh High Court · 2020

Re-Examination is more important than Examination in Chief

PLJ 2020 · Sindh High Court · 2020