2026 P Cr. L J 389

 2026 P Cr. L J 389

[Supreme Court (AJ&K)]

Before Raja Saeed Akram Khan, C.J, Kh. Muhammad Nasim

and Raza Ali Khan, JJ

Syed MUHAMMAD KASHAN HAIDER and 2 others---Appellants

Versus

The STATE and others---Respondents

Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2025, decided on 17th March, 2025.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497(1)---Azad Penal Code (XLV of 1860),Ss. 302(b), 341 & 34---

Arms Act (XI of 1878), S. 15(2)---Qatl-i-amd, wrongful restraint,

common intention, possession of illicit weapon---Bail ---Statutory

delay in conclusion of trial---Bail on the ground of delay in

conclusion of trial---Scope---Allegations against the accused-

appellants were that they committed murder of the brother of

complainant by firing---Record showed that police conducted an

investigation and submitted the challan on 22.03.2022---It was

alleged that the trial remained delayed due to a parallel private

complaint filed by respondent No.2 on 08.04.2022 before the Court,

under the same offences---Trial Court stayed the proceedings of the

challan case on 28.09.2022---Private complaint was eventually

withdrawn by the complainant on 02.03.2024 and the trial of the

challan case resumed thereafter---Due to excessive delay in the trial,

the appellants moved bail application before the Trial Court on

statutory grounds under S.497, Cr.P.C., citing prolonged

incarceration exceeding two years without framing of charges---

However, the Trial Court dismissed the bail application on

30.03.2024---Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed a revision

petition before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which

had been dismissed through the impugned judgment, hence, this

appeal---It was regrettable state of affairs that the revision petition

was filed before the High Court on 29.05.2024, yet it remained

pending for nearly eight months---Despite such considerable delay,

instead of adjudicating the revision petition on merits, the High

Court merely remanded the case to the Trial Court, thereby further

prolonging the matter---However, in the present case, the High Court

kept the bail matter pending for nearly eight months and, instead of

deciding it on its own merits, remanded it to the Trial Court,

resulting in further delay---Moreover, in the light of arguments

addressed at bar, following points needed resolution in this case;

what was the effect of filing of private complaint and its withdrawal in this case; whether the delay in non-conclusion of trial had to be

determined from the date of detention of the accused or from the

date of submission of challan; and whether the appellants were

entitled to concession of bail on statutory ground---Thus, it was the

High Court which had to decide these questions itself---In such

circumstances, matter was remanded to High Court for deciding the

same, within a period of one week.

PLD 2022 SC 122; PLD 2022 SC 551; 2022 SCMR 1; 2015 SCMR 1007

and 2004 PCr.LJ 52 ref.

Noman Ajmal v. Moheen and others 2020 YLR Note 110, p-105 rel.

Tahir Aziz Khan, Advocate for Appellants.

Sheikh Masood Iqbal, Advocate General and Raja Gul Majeed Khan,

Advocate for the State.

Date of hearing: 13th March, 2025.

JUDGMENT

RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, C.J.---The appellants and other

accused persons were booked in FIR No. 414/21 dated 14.11.2021,

registered under in offences under sections 302/341, 34 APC and 15(2)

Arms Act. In the FIR, it was alleged that all the accused persons

nominated in the FIR, through a firearms, injured "Nayyar Abbas

Jafari", the brother of the complainant in order to kill him, who

remained in strive for life in a hospital but succumbed to the injuries,

on hence, accused persons nominated in the FIR be proceeded in

accordance with law. The police conducted an investigation and

submitted the challan on 22.03.2022. It is alleged that the trial

remained delayed due to a parallel private complaint filed by

respondent No.2 on 08.04.2022 before the Additional District Court of

Criminal Jurisdiction, Muzaffarabad, under the same offences. The

trial court stayed the proceedings of the challani case on 28.09.2022.

The private complaint was eventually withdrawn by the complainant

on 02.03.2024, and the trial of the challani case resumed thereafter.

Due to excessive delay in the trial, the appellants moved bail

application before the trial court on statutory grounds under Section

497 Cr.P.C., citing prolonged incarceration exceeding two years

without framing of charges. However, the trial court dismissed the

bail application on 30.03.2024. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed

a revision petition before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High

Court (in short "High Court"), which has been dismissed through the

impugned judgment, hence, this appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the appellants

have been falsely implicated in the case due to mala fide intentions and ulterior motives of respondent No.2, who, with the connivance of

the police, manipulated the investigation and charge-sheeted the

appellants under fabricated allegations. He contended that the

prosecution deliberately delayed the trial by filing a private complaint,

which was later withdrawn, thereby causing an unjustified and

extraordinary delay of over two years, during which the appellants

remained in custody without the conclusion of the trial. He further

argued that the delay in framing charges and the prolonged detention

of the appellants, despite their non-involvement in any act

contributing to the delay, entitles them to bail under section 497, Cr.P.C

on statutory grounds. The learned counsel emphasized that both the

trial court and the High Court failed to appreciate the legal and factual

aspects of the case, overlooked the prosecution's deliberate attempt to

withhold and manipulate proceedings, and dismissed the bail

application without properly adjudging the appellants' right to liberty

in light of the prolonged and unjustified detention. He submitted that

the appellants are entitled to the concession of bail, as their continued

incarceration violates their fundamental rights, and the prosecution

has failed to establish any lawful justification for their prolonged

detention. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the

cases reported as PLD 2022 SC 122, PLD 2022 SC 551, 2022 SCMR 1 and

2015 SCMR 1007.

3. The learned counsel for the complainant-respondent argued that

the challan was presented on 22.03.2022, while the appellants filed

their bail application on 19.03.2024, three days prior to the completion

of two years, and as per the law laid by this Court in the case reported

as 2001 YLR 2109, the relevant period to be considered is the date of

filing of the bail application, making the appellants ineligible for bail

on statutory grounds. He also relied on 2004 PCr.LJ 52, to assert that

mere delay is not a sufficient ground for bail unless it amounts to an

abuse of process or scandalous delay, which is not the case here. He

maintained that the learned trial court, in its judgment dated

30.03.2024, correctly held that the manner of occurrence brings the

case within the exceptions of Section 497(1)(B) Cr.P.C., and this Court in

the case reported as 2000 SCR 1 has elaborated on the concept of

hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminals, under which the

appellants do not qualify for bail. He further argued that the delay in

trial has not been caused by the prosecution but rather by the

appellant. He concluded that the impugned order is legal, well-

reasoned, and based on the record, with no illegality pointed out by

the appellants, making the appeal liable to dismissal with costs.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the record. The case history shows that the appellants were

implicated in a murder case bearing FIR No.414/21 dated 14.11.2021. The concerned Police conducted an investigation and submitted the

challan on 22.03.2022 with significant delay. Thereafter, the

complainant challenged the challan through Revision Petition

No.81/2022 before 81/2022 the High Court on 23.04.2022, which was

decided on 06.02.2025. Simultaneously, complainant filed a private

complaint before the trial the Court on 08.04.2022, which resulted in

the suspension of proceedings in the challani case. The private

complaint proceeded until its withdrawal on 02.03.2024. Thereafter,

the appellants filed an application before the trial Court on 19.03.2024

for their release on statutory grounds which was dismissed vide

judgment dated 30.03.2024. The appellants then filed a revision

petition before the High Court which has been dismissed through the

impugned judgment.

5. A perusal of the record reveals that the appellants are seeking

bail on statutory grounds as provided under section 497, Cr.P.C. It is a

regrettable state of affairs that the revision petition was filed before

the High Court on 29.05.2024, yet it remained pending for nearly eight

months. Despite this considerable delay, instead of adjudicating the

revision petition on merits, the learned High Court merely remanded

the case to the trial court, thereby further prolonging the matter. This

Court has already taken serious notice of delay in deciding the bail

matters in the case reported as Noman Ajmal v. Moheen Naseem and

others [2020 YLR Note 110, p-105] where it was observed that that:--

After recording the aforesaid observations, this Court, inter alia,

issued following direction: However, in the present case, the learned High Court kept the bail

matter pending for nearly eight months and, instead of deciding it on

its own merits, remanded it to the trial court, resulting in further

delay.

6. In the light of arguments addressed at bar, we are of the view that

following points need resolution in this case:-

i. what is the effect of filing of private complaint and its withdrawal

in this case;

ii. whether the delay in non-conclusion of trial has to be determined

from the date of detention of the accused or from the date of

submission of challan; and

iii. whether the appellants are entitled to concession of bail on

statutory ground.

In our opinion, it was enjoined upon the learned High Court to

decide these questions itself. In view of these circumstances, we have

passed the short order dated 13.03.2025 remanding the case to the

High Court for deciding the matter within a period of one week.

JK/57/SC(AJK) Case remanded.