Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Fateh Deep Singh, J. allowed the bail application on the ground that trial was not going to finish in near future. 

The facts of the case were that a decoy woman patient who was pregnant was sent for abortion purposes and on the asking of the accused who demanded Rs 12,000, Rs 4000 was paid as advance and balance was to be paid on next day. In pursuance of this settlement, it was alleged that the petitioner gave one tablet to the lady patient to consume and another tablet was placed in her vagina to facilitate abortion.  Thus the case against the petitioner was lodged. 

Abhishek Singh, counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was behind the bars for more than six months and that there was no medical evidence to show that the petitioner had facilitated abortion of pregnancy which as per the own stand of the prosecution was on account of willingness of the alleged patient and neither there was any recovery of tablet from the vaginal area nor any medical report to establish abortion on that account and nature of tablet. It was further argued that the trial was not likely to be concluded in the near future, hence prayed for the grant of bail application. 

Baljinder Virk, counsel for the state opposed the grant of bail on the grounds of the heinousness of crime and seriousness of allegations. 

High Court opined that as petitioner was behind the bar for more than six months and a debatable issue arises over the applicability of offence for which the petitioner has been hauled up or are cognizable or non-cognizable and the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, thus no purpose will be served by retaining the petitioner in jail. Thus the bail application was allowed to satisfaction of the chief judicial magistrate. [Gogi Rani v. State of Haryana, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 1019, decided on 31-05-2019]

Case BriefsForeign Courts

Supreme Court of Pakistan: The Five-Judge Bench of Mian Saqib Nisar, Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Gulzar Ahmed, Mushir Alam and Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, JJ.,  refused to interfere with the Judgment of Division Bench of Islamabad High Court granting bail to former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz Sharif and son-in-law Capt. (Retd) Muhammad Safdar.

The Court took note of certain shortcomings in the impugned judgment such as commenting on the merits of the case, making premature conclusions at the stage of bail/ suspension of sentence, recording of a lengthy bail order in contravention of this Court’s guidelines. However, despite the said deficiencies, it was observed that considerations for grant of bail and those for its cancellation are entirely different. 

It was opined that no allegation had been levelled regarding any misuse or abuse of the concession of bail by respondents. One of the said respondents was already in jail after having been convicted and sentenced in connection with another criminal case, another of the said respondents was a woman and the law envisaged concession for her in the matter of bail, and the sentence of imprisonment passed by the trial Court against yet another of the said respondents was quite short. Thus, the Court concluded that there was no occasion for interference with the jurisdiction and discretion exercised by the High Court in the matter of the said respondents’ bail upon suspension of their sentences during the pendency of their appeals. Thus, the appeal was dismissed.[National Accountability Bureau v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Civil Appeal No. 1340 of 2018, decided on 14-01-2019]