Qari SHAFIQUEURREHMAN alias QARI KABIR vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail petition filed by Qari Shafique-ur-Rehman alias Qari Kabir, alongside suo motu proceedings regarding the bail granted to co-accused Sarfraz and Shakir. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who had been incarcerated for over fifteen months without the completion of the investigation or the recovery of incriminating evidence, was entitled to post-arrest bail, and whether the suo motu notice against the co-accused should be maintained. The Court observed that the co-accused had been exonerated by the complainant and that the police investigation supported their lack of involvement. Regarding the petitioner, the Court noted the prolonged pre-trial detention without incriminating recovery or investigation completion. The Court held that no person can be detained indefinitely pending investigation. Consequently, the Court withdrew the suo motu notice against the co-accused and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, emphasizing that the right to liberty cannot be curtailed by indefinite detention, while directing the police to continue efforts to apprehend the absconding main accused and recover the abductees.
- Can an accused be kept in custody indefinitely when the investigation remains incomplete?
- Does the exoneration of accused persons by the complainant provide valid grounds for maintaining bail?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when no incriminating material is recovered during physical remand and detention exceeds one year?
ORDER
' This order will dispose of Crl. Misc. No.2630-B of 2003, tilted as Qari Shafique-ur-Rehman alias Qari Kabir, Crl. Misc. No.4214-C.I3 of 2003 in Crl. Misc. No.2630-B of 2003 (under suo motu).
2. Capital City Police Officer, Lahore, is present in Court and has submitted his report. He submits that many police parties were constituted for the arrest of Riaz-ud-Din the main accused and had gone to Peshawar and Karachi to arrest him but till today he has not been arrested, that all efforts are being made to arrest the main accused and to recover the abductees.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sarfraz and Shakir respondents were allowed bail by the learned trial Court against whom suo. Motu notice was issued that at the time of grant of bail the learned Additional Sessions Judge had relied upon the application submitted by the complainant in which he had exonerated both the accused Shakir and Sarfraz. He submits that both the above accused remained on physical remand and during the period of remand nothing incriminating was recovered from them. He submits that Sarfraz remained behind the bars for 8 months while Shakir accused remained behind the bars for 5 months respectively. He submits that as far as present petitioner Qari Shafique-ur-Rehman is concerned, he is behind the bars for the last more than one year and three months. He also remained on physical remand but nothing incriminating was recovered from him. Learned counsel submits that main accused is Riaz-ud-Din absconder with whom the alleged abductees have eloped.
4. On the other hand learned Additional A.-G. Submits that all the Police Officers present in Court are of the opinion that Sarfraz and Shakir had got no involvement in the instant case and they are being falsely involved different occasions due to the statement of Zaman complainant. He submits that the investigation should be allowed to proceed in a normal way.
5. I have -.Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Even the S.P. The I.O. Of this case present in Court submits that Sarfraz and Shakir were allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the statement made by Zaman the complainant in which he had exonerated both of them, so far as suo motu notice against Shakir and Sarfraz respondents is concerned, that is withdrawn. As far as Shafique-ur-Rehman alias Qari Kabir petitioner is concerned, he is behind the bars for more than one year and three months. He also remained on A physical remand but nothing incriminating was recovered from him. Even investigation is not completed. No person can be put behind the bars for an indefinite period. In this view of the matter, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. However, the police officers -are directed to proceed with the investigation and they should make efforts at their level best to arrest Riaz ud Din absconder and to recover the alleged abcluctees. With these observations this petition stands disposed of.