MUHAMMAD TAJ vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Taj Muhammad, who was charged under sections 302/324/148/149/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial, despite the deletion of statutory grounds for bail in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the petitioner had been incarcerated for over four years, the prosecution had only examined ten out of thirty-seven witnesses, and the eyewitnesses were proclaimed offenders in other cases, creating a bottleneck in the trial. The Court held that while statutory grounds for bail had been removed, the judiciary retains the discretion to grant bail in genuine cases where trial delay is not attributable to the accused. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, ruling that the case against him, involving only ineffective firing, warranted further inquiry.
- Can a court grant bail in cases where the statutory grounds for bail have been removed?
- Does inordinate delay in the conclusion of a trial, not attributable to the accused, constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
- Is an accused person entitled to bail when the prosecution witnesses are unavailable and the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this application the petitioner Taj Muhammad son of Manzoor Hussain seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.109 dated 30-6-1998 registered at Police Station Chountra District, Rawalpindi under sections 302/324/148/149/109, P.P.C.
2. The petitioner is one of the accused in the aforesaid case and in all there are 14 accused.
Ineffective firing is attributed to the petitioners. Murder of two persons is alleged to have been caused. The petitioner earlier filed a bail application which was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 20th of April, 2002. Thereafter bail application vide Criminal Miscellaneous No.775-B of 2002 was filed in this Court which was withdrawn by the petitioner on 5th of August, 2002 with the direction that the trial of the murder case be conducted expeditiously and it be concluded preferably within a period of one month. As the trial did not conclude, the petitioner thereafter filed a fresh bail application before the trial Court which was again dismissed on 12-11- 2003.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was arrested in the month of July, 1998 and is behind the bars for more than four years. Further it was submitted that despite a direction issued by this Court, the trial has not yet been concluded and that the petitioner is suffering the rigour of confinement unduly as he has been falsely implicated and only ineffective firing is attributed to him. The learned Assistant Advocate-General representing the State opposes the grant of bail.
4. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel from both sides and perusal of the record I find that in all there are 37 witnesses of the prosecution out of which only ten witnesses are recorded. The eyewitnesses in case were later on involved in some other murder case and they have been declared as proclaimed offenders. The order sheet of the trial Court shows that the availability of the prosecution witnesses particularly of the eye-witnesses is a serious bottle neck in conclusion of the trial.
5. In the light of the peculiar facts of this case, the conclusion of the trial in near future does not appear to be a possibility. The petitioner is behind the bars for more then four years. The allegation against the petitioner is that of indiscriminate firing which has not resulted into any injury to anybody. It would be seen at the time of the trial whether the petitioner has incurred any liability under the provisions of sections 148/149/109, P.P.C. As such the case against the petitioner at this stage is that of further inquiry.
6. Although, the statutory grounds for the grant of bail have been deleted through amendment in section 497, Cr.P.C. But in genuine cases where the inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial is not attributable to the accused, the Court can consider inter alia the circumstances and has the discretion to take it as a ground for the grant of bail. Keeping in view, all the circumstances of this case I allow this application. Resultantly, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.