MUHAMMAD USMAN vs State S — 2024 SCMR 28 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD USMAN VS State S. 497(1), third proviso---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Bail---Statutory ground of delay in conclusion of trial---Principles---Right (to bail) recognized under the third proviso of section 497(1) cannot be denied to an accused on the basis of discretionary powers of the court to grant bail---Said right has not been left to the discretion of the court, rather, its accrual is subject to the fulfillment of the conditions mentioned under the third proviso of section 497(1) of the Cr.P.C.---If any act or omission of the accused has hindered the conclusion of trial within the period specified in the third proviso of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ('Cr.P.C.') then a right, as contemplated thereunder, will not accrue in the latter's favour and, therefore, he or she, as the case may be, would not become entitled to be released on bail on the statutory ground of delay in conclusion of the trial---Nonetheless, if after the rejection of the plea of bail on statutory grounds, the accused has subsequently corrected himself/herself and has abstained from doing any act or omission in the following period specified under the third proviso, then a fresh ground would accrue to the accused to invoke the jurisdiction of the court for grant of bail---Third proviso to section 497(1) of Cr.P.C. would thus become operative as and when the period specified therein has expired but the trial has not concluded without any fault on part of the accused---In the case in hand, the ground of statutory delay was not available to the petitioner (accused) when he had sought the concession of bail through the two attempts made by him---It was during subsistence of the second bail petition that the period specified under the third proviso had ripened and, therefore, a fresh ground became available to seek bail---Petition before the High Court was dismissed for non-prosecution and such dismissal did not prejudice his right to file a fresh petition before the High Court, which he did---Petition was competent because a fresh ground of delay in conclusion of trial had become available to him---Petition was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was admitted to bail.

MUHAMMAD USMAN vs State S — 2024 SCMR 28 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 SCMR