Abdul Rahim And Another vs The State
This matter concerns a bail application filed by Abdul Rahim and Suhail Ahmed, who were charged under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a murder case registered in 2001. The applicants, having been in custody since their arrest on September 13, 2001, sought post-arrest bail primarily on the grounds of statutory hardship, citing the prolonged delay in the conclusion of their trial. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail due to the inordinate delay in the trial process, which had exceeded three years without fault on their part. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to the concession of bail, noting that the trial had not proceeded despite the applicants' prolonged incarceration. The Court emphasized the principle that where an accused has remained in custody for a significant period without the trial reaching a conclusion, and where the delay is not attributable to the accused, the court may exercise its discretion to grant bail to prevent undue hardship.
- Does prolonged pre-trial incarceration without the trial reaching a conclusion constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail?
- Can bail be granted to an accused charged with murder where the trial has been delayed for over three years without fault of the accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. MUKAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, J.- Through instant bail application, applicants namely Abdul Rahim and Suhail Ahmed seek bail in Crime No. 141/2001, registered at Police Station New Faujdari for offence punishable under, sections 302, 148, 149, PPC. The bail plea of the applicants was declined by the learned IV the Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur vide order dated 24.7.2004.
2. The prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R, is that on 31.8.2001, complainant Ghulam Nabi Jalbani lodged report stating therein that Deedar Ali son of Muhammad Umar was his 'Marote' and he was employed in Shahri Itehad Office in Shikarpur. Few days ago to this incident there was exchange of harsh words between Deedar Ali and present accused. They used fitly language against each other. On this accused party felt their insult. On the day of incident the complainant, his relatives Manzoor Ahmed son of Muhammad Ramzan and Sikandar Ali son of Mir Muhammad were sitting on the Bench by the side of Hotel. Deedar Ali after closing his office was going in a street towards High School No.,
2. Accused Abdul Rahim, his brother accused Suhail and their father Abdul Hakeem accompanied with accused Imtiaz and Shaboo alias Ali Khan. They emerged through the same street leading towards High School No. 2. As soon as Deedar Ali reached near the shop of accused Nazar Muhammad Soomro. Accused Abdul Hakeem instigated co-accused not to spare Deedar Ali as he had insulted them, on which co-accused Abdul Rahim, Suhail, Shaboo alias Ali Khan and Imtiaz took out knives from the fold of their Shalwar and started inflicting knife injuries to Deedar. Ali. Accused Abdul Rahim also received some injuries in the fight. The complainant party raised 'Lalkara' and came running there. The accused thereafter managed to escape. Deedar Ali fell down on the ground and went unconscious. He was immediately removed to Civil Hospital Shikarpur in an injured condition but died in the Hospital due to injuries sustained by him. F.I.R, to that effect was lodged: The investigation followed and in the course the applicant was sent up to stand trial in the Court of law.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record.
4. Mr. Jai Jai Veshno Mange Ram learned counsel for the applicants has contended that there are contradiction in between ocular and medical evidence. The applicants were arrested on 13.9.2001, since then they are in continuously custody but the trial of the case has not yet been concluded.
5. The main ground pressed, into service is hardship. The applicants were arrested on 13.9.2001, and since then they are in custody but the trial has not yet concluded. The period for which the applicants remained behind bars is more than three years yet the case has not proceeded. The case diaries brought on record show that learned counsel for the applicants could not proceed without their fault, ln these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the applicants are entitled for concession of bail. Accordingly, it is ordered that the applicants be released on bail provided they furnish solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one lac) each and P. R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.