MUHAMMAD SHAHID vs THE STATE
This is a criminal bail application filed by the accused Muhammad Shahid facing trial under Section 392/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 before the Sessions Court after his earlier conviction by an Anti-Terrorism Court was set aside in appeal. The core legal question concerns whether the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of statutory delay and lack of incriminating evidence in the deposition of the sole examined witness. The Sindh High Court held that since the applicant has remained in custody for nearly three years and only one witness has been examined thus far with the trial unlikely to conclude in the near future, the applicant has made out a case for bail. The court laid down the principle that prolonged incarceration coupled with delayed progress of trial, where the complainant's evidence does not conclusively implicate the accused at this stage, entitles an accused person to the concession of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the trial has been considerably delayed and only one witness has been examined after nearly three years of incarceration?
- Does the lack of direct incrimination by the complainant in the deposition justify the grant of bail under Section 392/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' This is an application for bail of the accused Muhammad Shahid who is facing trial for an offence under section 392/34, P.P.C. Along with co-accused Muhammad Aamir before the Court of learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge. Karachi Central.
2. ' The facts relevant are that the applicant and his co-accused were first challaned before the Anti- Terrorism Court at Karachi, who were convicted and they preferred an appeal before this Court. In the appeal the judgment of conviction was set aside and the case was ordered to be tried by the Sessions Court having jurisdiction.
3. ' The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned transferee Court after receipt of the case has been able to examine the complainant only on 8-5-2003. It is urged that the applicant has remained in custody for more than two years and eleven months as he was arrested on 6-4-2001 and that the complainant has not implicated the applicant in his evidence.
4. ' Mr. Habibur Rashid, learned counsel appearing for the State after going through the deposition of the complainant Syed Imran Ahmed which has been filed with this application (page 51) submits that the complainant has stated before the Court Oat A.S.-I. Sarwar Hussain of Police Station Buffer Zone had asked the complainant to identify both the accused persons before the Judicial Magistrate in the identification parade.
5. ' In view of the above, the learned State Counsel does not oppose the prayer of bail to the applicant.
6. ' For the reasons as aforementioned, in my view the applicant's case does not seem to be concluding in near future as only one witness has been examined so far, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. The applicant is allowed bail subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.