ABDUL RAHIM and anothers Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Abdul Rahim and Suhail Ahmed, who were charged under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for their alleged involvement in a murder incident. The applicants had previously been denied bail by the trial court. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the applicants were entitled to the concession of bail on the grounds of statutory hardship, given that they had been in continuous custody since their arrest on September 13, 2001, without the trial reaching a conclusion for over three years. The Court observed that the delay in the trial was not attributable to the fault of the applicants. Consequently, the High Court held that the prolonged incarceration without trial completion constituted sufficient grounds for bail. The principle laid down is that where an accused has remained in custody for an extended period—in this instance, over three years—without the trial being concluded through no fault of their own, they are entitled to the grant of bail on the basis of hardship.
- Does prolonged incarceration without the conclusion of a trial constitute valid grounds for the grant of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail where the delay in the trial proceedings is not attributable to their own fault?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' Through instant bail application, applicants namely Abdul Rahim and Suhail Ahmed seek bail in Crime No,141 of 2001, registered at Police Station, New Faujdari for offence punishable under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C. The bail plea of the applicants was declined by the learned IVth 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 Jelbani lodged report stating therein that Deedar Ali son of Muhammad Umar was his 'Marote' and he was employee 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 filthy 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 Raheem, 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 Shalwars 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.
3. ' The investigation followed and in due course the applicant was sent up to stand trial in the Court of law.
4. ' I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record.
5. ' Mr. Jai Jai Veshno Mange Ram learned counsel for the applicants has contended that there are contradictions in between ocular and medical evidence. The applicants were arrested on 13-9- 2001, since then they are in continuous custody but the trial of the case has not yet been concluded.
6. ' 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. In 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.