MUHAMMAD WARIS vs THE STATE
The applicant sought post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory hardship arising from protracted detention without trial in a case registered under sections 302, 148, 149, 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 13 of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question was whether prolonged incarceration exceeding two years and ten months without the commencement of recording evidence constitutes a sufficient ground of hardship for the grant of bail. The Sindh High Court held that where an accused person has suffered a sufficiently long period of detention without trial for no fault of their own and the prospects of the trial concluding are uncertain, bail ought to be granted on the basis of hardship. The court laid down the principle that protracted and delayed trial without fault of the accused, resulting in prolonged incarceration, entitles an undertrial prisoner to the concession of post-arrest bail.
- Whether prolonged detention without commencement of trial constitutes a ground of hardship for granting post-arrest bail?
- Can bail be granted on the basis of hardship when the delay in trial is not attributable to the accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' Applicant Muhammad Waris Brohi is being tried by learned Sessions Judge, Jacobabad for an offence punishable under sections 302, 148, 149, 114, P.P.C. And 13 D.A.O.
2. ' It is needless to embark upon the facts of the case, since the bail plea is advanced solely on the ground of hardship suffered by the applicant who was arrested on 20-3-2001 and is in custody for a period of two years, 10 months, 28 days, without trial.
3. ' I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto learned counsel for the State, the latter concedes to grant of bail in view of the circumstances of the case as aforesaid.
4. ' Progress Report about the trial shows that Challan was submitted by police on 3-4-2001 and charge was framed after two years i.e. On 7-6-2003. No evidence has, as yet been recorded and the trial is being postponed for various reasons.
5. ' On perusal of Progress Report sent by trial Court it is manifestly clear that the prospects of proceedings of the trial are not in sight and such situation may continue for an unascertained period. In this view of the matter learned counsel has urged that the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court would adequately furnish a ground for grant of bail on hardship basis owing to detention without trial. He has relied upon following case-laws in support of his contentions:--
(1) Behram v. State 2003 PCr.LJ 73.
(2) Abdul Hameed v. State 2003 PCr.LJ 19.
(3) Shabir v. State 2003 Cr.LJ 586.
(4) Ali Murad v. State SBLR 2003 Sindh 1321.
(5) Jhur v. State 2003 PCr.LJ 1477.
(6) Shabir v. State PCr.LJ 1521.
(7) Punhal v. State 2004 PCr.LJ 90.
(8) Imran Amin v. State 2002 M LD 1416.
6. ' I have gone through the authorities cited by learned counsel. In the case of Abdul Hameed v. State 2003 M LD 19, this Court took note of the detention of two years and eight months as a case of hardship and allowed concession of bail since the trial was making no progress. Similarly in the case of Punhal v. The State 2004 PCr.LJ 90 looking to the detention period of three years and seven months, concession of bail was allowed. This Court reviewed decisions in a large number of cases in 2003 PCr.LJ 1521 Shabir v. State and granted bail in the case where detention period was 2 years, 11 months and 24 days. This Court also granted bail in Cr. Bail Applications Nos.24 of 2004 and Bail Application No.4 of 2004 on the ground of hardship.
7. In the cases cited above the longer period of detention without trial has been considered as a ground of hardship. Instantly, the accused/ applicant is in custody for a period of 2 years, 10 months, 8 days but the trial has not yet taken the start for no fault on the part of the accused. Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto learned State counsel has thus rightly conceded to grant of bail.
8. ' Resultantly, in the aforesaid circumstances, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.300,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
9. ' Application stands alongwith listed-applications. Disposed of