Commencement of trial

2023 SCMR 308 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 497(5)Bail, cancellation ofCommencement of trial

No hard and fast rule can be laid down that bail should not be cancelled merely for the reason that the trial has commenced or is likely to commence because every case is to be examined in the light of its own facts

Crucial question that arises for determination would be as to whether a person is entitled to grant of bail under the provision of section 497, Cr.P.C.

2023 PCrLJN 100 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 497BailCommencement of trialEffect

Mere commencement of trial is no ground for the refusal of bail. [Para. 8 of the judgment]

2021 MLD 379 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.497BailCommencement of trialScope

Accused was not to be released on bail when trial is in progress.

2021 MLD 1597 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.497BailCommencement of trialScope

Mere commencement of trial is no ground for refusal of bail if the case of accused falls under the ambit of further inquiry.

2019 MLD 1585 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

Ss. 497& 169Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 109/114& 34Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intentionBail, grant ofFurther inquiryCommencement of trialScope and effect

Complainant lodged FIR against some unknown persons and later nominated four persons in his supplementary statement in which abetment was alleged upon the petitioner

Petitioner/accused contended that out of four nominated persons, Police released two accused under S. 169, Cr.P.C, which showed that there was only guess work on the part of the complainant

Complainant contended that as trial had commenced, the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of bail

Complainant, admittedly, had not filed any application to any higher authorities of police for setting aside the findings of investigating officer nor he opted any other recourse available to him under the law for redressal of his grievances

Case of the petitioner was one of further inquiry and the bail was to be granted to the accused as a matter of right and not as a matter of grace

When case of an accused became as one of the further inquiry, he was entitled for bail even if the trial had commenced or if the same was at the verge of completion

Practice could not be given preference over the right

Courts were custodian of the liberty of the people and it was bounden duty of the Courts to exercise discretion in favour of those, whose cases were covered under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C as there was no concept of advance punishment in criminal justice system

Petitioner had been charged for abetment of offence and the case of an abettor was always at lower pedestal as compared to the principal accused, who were charged for commission of the offence

All such factors, when taken cumulatively, had made out the case of the petitioner fit for grant of bail

Bail was granted to the petitioner , in circumstances.

2016 PCrLJ 672 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 7, 4 & 3Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 265-C & 265-DPrevention of illegal possession of propertyEviction and mode of recovery as an interim reliefSupply of statements and documents to accusedFraming of chargeCommencement of trial

Trial Court, allowing application under S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, restored possession of the subject property to the complainants

Validity

Provisions of S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 manifested that grant of interim relief was subject to the condition, 'during trial'

Taking cognizance of the case by the court was the first step, which might or might not culminate into the trial of the accused, and trial did not commence with taking of the cognizance

Trial would not start until a period of seven days after supplying of the relevant copies to the accused in terms of S. 265-C(2)(b), Cr.P.C. had expired and the charge had been framed

Court had to perform its judicial duty under S. 265-D, Cr.P.C. to frame the charge after perusal of the police report, complaint and all other documents/statements filed by the prosecution, and if the court was of the opinion that sufficient ground existed to proceed with the trial, the court would frame charge in writing against the accused

Provision of S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 had to be seen in the context of the word used in the same, especially the words, 'Court is satisfied' and 'found prima facie', which cast duty upon the court to perform all those functions, which required in framing of charge

Application of S.7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, therefore, could only be assumed when the entire material had been looked into and the court was of the considered view that the charges prima facie existed against the accused

Section 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 would, therefore, could only come into play after framing of the charge

Trial Court had yet to conclude prima facie existence of the allegations after perusal of the FIR, police report, statement of witnesses and other documents and had to formulate its mind to frame the charge under S. 265-D, Cr.P.C. or otherwise

In the present case, as the charge had not yet been framed, order passed under S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was illegal and without jurisdiction

High Court, setting aside the impugned order, held that the application under S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 would be deemed to be pending before the Trial Court, and the same would be taken up after the commencement of the trial

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2014 SCMR 27 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 497(2)Bail, refusal ofGroundsCase of further inquiryScopeCommencement of trialPlea of complainant that bail granting order might affect the merits of the trial, which was likely to commenceValidity

Supreme Court was not barred from granting bail at any stage provided accused had made out a case of further inquiry.

2014 SCMR 12 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.497(2)BailCase of further inquiryCommencement of trialEffect

Commencement of trial could not come in the way of grant of bail, if in the opinion of the court, a case for further inquiry was made out.

2014 YLR 896 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 497(2)BailFurther inquirySubmission of challan before courtCommencement of trialEffect

Mere commencement of trial before court or submission of challan before the court was no ground for refusal of bail if case of accused was otherwise one of further inquiry within the ambit of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

2014 YLR 1242 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 497Bail, refusal ofGroundCommencement of trial

Mere commencement of trial was no ground to refuse bail, if otherwise accused became entitled to bail.

2014 PCrLJ 1724 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 497Bail, grant ofScopeCommencement of trialEffectAccused could not be refused bail on the ground that trial had commenced

Illustration.

2013 YLR 2218 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 561-APenal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-FDishonestly issuing a chequeQuashing of F.I.R. under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C.ScopeCommencement of trialAvailability of alternate remedyEffect

Accused had business relations with the complainant and to pay an outstanding amount accused issued a cheque to the complainant, which got dishonoured on presentation due to insufficient funds

F.I.R. was registered after proper inquiry

Trial in the case had commenced, therefore, there was no reason to quash the F.I.R.

Accused had the remedy to move an application before the Trial Court under either S. 265-K Cr.P.C. or S. 249-A, Cr.P.C.

Petition for quashing of F.I.R. was dismissed accordingly.

2013 PCrLJ 1580 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 497(2)BailScopeCase of further inquiryCommencement of trialEffect

Where case of accused fell within the ambit of further inquiry, commencement of trial was no ground to refuse bail to him.