ahmad4212
03-30-2012, 12:28 AM
• ----Discretion of a Court--Releasing of the accused on bail is not as a matter of right but is a privilege to be granted at the discretion of a Court to be exercised in accordance with well established sound judicial principles--If a discretion has been exercised after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, properly appreciating the question involved in it, it would be a proper exercise of discretion and Supreme Court would refuse to interfere.
• -Reasonable grounds to believe--In case of bail the Court is not required to probe into the matter but has to make a tentative assessment of the material produced to ascertain whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that accused has committed the crime. 1995 SCMR 1249 & 1994 SCMR 1283, rel
• Constitutional Court--Supreme Court is primarily a constitutional Court and not expected to go into matters concerning grant of bail by High Court unless and until the High Court had exercised discretion in violation of settled principles laid down by Supreme Court.
• If the Court was of the opinion that the case appears to be one which stands covered by S. 497(2), then it becomes obligatory on the Court to direct the release of the accused on bail as he becomes entitled to bail as of right and not as a matter of grace--Held: When there is no material of such a nature which constitute reasonable grounds to make one believe that they were guilty of the offence charged with and when the case stands covered by S. 497(2) Cr.P.C.--Bail application allowed and directed that petitioner be released on bail. [PLJ 2011 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 97]
• Grant of in Hadood cases—Islamic law—Principles of—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — Applicability of— Held: Criminal matters including bail to be decided by Courts under codified law—Held further : Islamic Penal Laws Act and Hadood Ordinance being silent in respect of bail in offences falling within tmbit of such laws, same to be settled under Criminal Procedure Code[P L J 1983 SC (AJK) 95]
• Bail, grant of--Non-prohibitory clause--Held: Where offence falls within the non-prohibitory clause, consider favourably by granting bail as a rule but decline to do so in the exceptional cases--As far as exceptional circumstances are concerned those are to be taken into consideration depending upon each case.[ PLD 1995 SC 34 & 2002 SCMR 1797 .]
• Bail, grant of--Remained in jail for a period of six months--No legal justification--An accused, charged for a criminal offence, ordinarily cannot be kept into custody for the purpose of punishment--Accused had already remained in jail for a period of six months and if the prosecution failed to establish guilt against him, his longer detention would cause him loss and his liberty would be curtailed for a considerable period without any legal justification.
• Under the non-prohibitory clause as well, an accused cannot claim bail as a matter of right but such facility can be extended to him as a matter of concession, simultaneously, keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner had already returned a huge portion of amount received by him from the complainant--Since the civil litigation had already commenced at the behest of the respondent who had filed a suit for recovery of the amount against the petitioner--Bail was allowed.[ PLD 1995 SC 34 & 2002 SCMR 1797,]
• The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) wherein it has been mentioned that "Section 497 Cr.PC. divided non-bailable offence into two categories i.e. (i) offences punishable with death, imprisonment of life or imprisonment for ten years; and (ii) offences punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years; the principle to be deduced from this provision of law is that in non-bailable offences falling in the second category (punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years) the grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception; so the bail will be declined only in extraordinary and exceptional cases, for example :--
(a) where there is likelihood of abscondance of the accused;
(b) where there is apprehension of the accused tampering with the prosecution
evidence;
(c) where there is danger of the offence being repeated if the accused is released on
bail; and
(d) where the accused is a previous convict."
This principle has also been reiterated in the case of Subhan Khan vs. The State (2002 SCMR 1797). [PLJ 2010 SC 1087]
• -Reasonable grounds to believe--In case of bail the Court is not required to probe into the matter but has to make a tentative assessment of the material produced to ascertain whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that accused has committed the crime. 1995 SCMR 1249 & 1994 SCMR 1283, rel
• Constitutional Court--Supreme Court is primarily a constitutional Court and not expected to go into matters concerning grant of bail by High Court unless and until the High Court had exercised discretion in violation of settled principles laid down by Supreme Court.
• If the Court was of the opinion that the case appears to be one which stands covered by S. 497(2), then it becomes obligatory on the Court to direct the release of the accused on bail as he becomes entitled to bail as of right and not as a matter of grace--Held: When there is no material of such a nature which constitute reasonable grounds to make one believe that they were guilty of the offence charged with and when the case stands covered by S. 497(2) Cr.P.C.--Bail application allowed and directed that petitioner be released on bail. [PLJ 2011 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 97]
• Grant of in Hadood cases—Islamic law—Principles of—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — Applicability of— Held: Criminal matters including bail to be decided by Courts under codified law—Held further : Islamic Penal Laws Act and Hadood Ordinance being silent in respect of bail in offences falling within tmbit of such laws, same to be settled under Criminal Procedure Code[P L J 1983 SC (AJK) 95]
• Bail, grant of--Non-prohibitory clause--Held: Where offence falls within the non-prohibitory clause, consider favourably by granting bail as a rule but decline to do so in the exceptional cases--As far as exceptional circumstances are concerned those are to be taken into consideration depending upon each case.[ PLD 1995 SC 34 & 2002 SCMR 1797 .]
• Bail, grant of--Remained in jail for a period of six months--No legal justification--An accused, charged for a criminal offence, ordinarily cannot be kept into custody for the purpose of punishment--Accused had already remained in jail for a period of six months and if the prosecution failed to establish guilt against him, his longer detention would cause him loss and his liberty would be curtailed for a considerable period without any legal justification.
• Under the non-prohibitory clause as well, an accused cannot claim bail as a matter of right but such facility can be extended to him as a matter of concession, simultaneously, keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner had already returned a huge portion of amount received by him from the complainant--Since the civil litigation had already commenced at the behest of the respondent who had filed a suit for recovery of the amount against the petitioner--Bail was allowed.[ PLD 1995 SC 34 & 2002 SCMR 1797,]
• The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) wherein it has been mentioned that "Section 497 Cr.PC. divided non-bailable offence into two categories i.e. (i) offences punishable with death, imprisonment of life or imprisonment for ten years; and (ii) offences punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years; the principle to be deduced from this provision of law is that in non-bailable offences falling in the second category (punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years) the grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception; so the bail will be declined only in extraordinary and exceptional cases, for example :--
(a) where there is likelihood of abscondance of the accused;
(b) where there is apprehension of the accused tampering with the prosecution
evidence;
(c) where there is danger of the offence being repeated if the accused is released on
bail; and
(d) where the accused is a previous convict."
This principle has also been reiterated in the case of Subhan Khan vs. The State (2002 SCMR 1797). [PLJ 2010 SC 1087]