ABDUL RAHIM and other vs STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by Abdul Rahim and Suhail Ahmed, who were charged with offences under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a murder case registered in 2001. The applicants' previous bail plea was dismissed by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail on the grounds of statutory hardship, given that they had been in continuous custody for over three years without the conclusion of their trial. The court examined the prosecution's case, which alleged that the accused had attacked the deceased with knives following a prior verbal altercation. Upon reviewing the record, the court observed that the trial had been significantly delayed for over three years, and the case diaries indicated that the delay was not attributable to the applicants. Consequently, the court held that the prolonged incarceration without trial completion constituted sufficient grounds for bail. The court granted the bail application, directing the applicants to furnish solvent surety to the satisfaction of the trial court.
- Does a delay of over three years in the conclusion of a trial constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail under the principle of hardship?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the delay in the trial proceedings is not attributable to their own conduct?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
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-th Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur vide order dated 24.7.2004.
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 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 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 inured 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 due course the applicant was sent up to stand trial in the. Court of law.
I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record.
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.
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 then 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.