The law of limitation is fully applicable to petitions for leave to appeal in matters relating to pre-arrest bail and there is no relaxation as far as the period of limitation is concerned unless sufficient cause is shown for the delay, as required under the law. After dismissal of the petition for pre-arrest bail by the High Court, this Court should be approached promptly in a pre-arrest bail matter to avail the remedy available under the law and to actualize the right of access to justice.
The law of limitation is fully applicable to petitions for leave to appeal in matters related to pre-arrest bail like in other criminal petitions filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, and a delay in a petition filed beyond the limitation period must be supported by an application for condonation of delay which is to be examined by the Court on its own merits. Even though sufficient cause for condoning delay in criminal matters has been interpreted liberally and leniently by this Court while dealing with petitions and appeals filed by those incarcerated, this view is rooted in the objective to ensure that those incarcerated have equal opportunities of access to justice, and for safe administration of criminal justice. A person behind bars faces numerous hindrances in pursuing his legal remedies because of restricted access to the outside world, and therefore, suffers a disability in comparison to those who enjoy liberty and freedom. The delay, therefore, is usually because of the constraints due to being imprisoned and not because of any ulterior motive. As such, condonation of delay in such petitions is viewed leniently through the lens of fundamental rights, particularly the right to liberty, dignity and fair trial guaranteed under Articles 9, 14 and 10A of the Constitution, with the purpose to provide those incarcerated with equal access to courts, and equal and proper opportunities to defend themselves and to avail remedies available under the law. It is for this reason that, by following the practice of taking a lenient and permissive view in cases of those incarcerated, this Court has held that the incarceration of a petitioner seeking post arrest bail itself constitutes sufficient cause to allow condonation of delay, unless the delay was caused due to some ulterior motive of the said petitioner himself.
However, the above ground is not available to condone delay in a petition for leave to appeal related to prearrest bail as the petitioner is not incarcerated and therefore, suffers no such disability. Failure to surrender before the authorities after dismissal of the pre-arrest bail petition by the High Court and then filing a time barred petition, impugning the decision of the High Court and seeking pre-arrest bail, before this Court could be indicative of an intent to remain a fugitive from the law. Such conduct could also be considered as a deliberate attempt to thwart the investigation, resulting in the loss of valuable evidence which is now simply lost or is impossible to collect due to afflux of time by failing to join the investigation. As such, failing to file a pre-arrest bail petition before this Court within the limitation period could either be intentional with ulterior purposes or, in the very least, due to the negligence of the petitioner, for which no reprieve can be granted by condoning delay without any sufficient cause. This Court should be approached promptly in a pre-arrest bail matter to avail the remedy available under the law and to actualize the right of access to justice. Therefore, the law of limitation is applicable to such petitions for leave to appeal in matters related to pre-arrest bail with its full rigour and there is no relaxation as far as the period of limitation is concerned unless sufficient cause is shown for the delay, as required under Rule 2 of Order XXIII of the Supreme Court Rules.
Crl.P.497-L/2023 Zafar Iqbal v. The State, etc Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah31-07-2023
0 Comments