AHMAD SULTAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Ahmed Sultan, who was charged under Sections 324, 353, 427, 225, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant sought post-arrest bail after his initial application was rejected by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail based on the ground of statutory hardship, given that he had been in continuous custody for over two years since his arrest on October 23, 2002, without the trial concluding. The court observed that despite the charge being framed on February 3, 2003, no prosecution witnesses had appeared to record evidence. The State conceded to the applicant's contention regarding the delay in trial. Consequently, the High Court held that the prolonged incarceration without progress in the trial constituted a case of hardship, justifying the grant of bail. The court granted the application, ordering the applicant's release upon furnishing solvent surety, thereby reinforcing the principle that undue delay in trial proceedings, where the accused is not at fault, serves as a valid ground for bail.
- Does a delay of over two years in the conclusion of a trial, where the accused is in continuous custody, constitute sufficient hardship to warrant the grant of bail?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution concedes that the trial has not proceeded despite the framing of charges?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 225, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 11, Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 16, Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. ' Applicant Ahmed Sultan seeks bail in Crime No,48 of 2002, registered at Police Station, Sijawal for offence under sections 324, 353, 427, 225, 148 and 149, P.P.C. The bail plea of the applicant was declined by the learned Ist. Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana vide order dated 29-3-2004.
2. ' The prosecution story as enunciated in the F.I.R. Is that on 23-10-2002 S.-I.P. Lal Bux, Incharge Investigation of Police Station, Hussain Abad, Hyderabad lodged report at Police Station, Sijawal wherein it has been stated that in one case being Crime No,78 of 2002 had been registered at Police Station, Hussain Abad, Hyderabad under sections 11/16 Zina Hudood Ordinance in connection with investigation of the said case, the above said complainant along with other police staff including lady Police Constable and accused Ghous Bux left Hyderabad and came to. Police Station Sijawal in order to arrest other accused persons and arranged identification test. According to complainant after making proper entries and taking in aid police constable Azizullah from Police Station, Sijawal, they left from there vide entry No,23 and at about 4-45 a.m. (night) went to the house of , accused Hadi Bux where they recovered the abductee Mst. Fatima Suria and apprehended accused Hadi Bux Luhur as they were told to sit in the van. In the meantime accused Ahmed Sultan along with eight other unidentified persons armed with rifles and guns came running who asked the complainant party to let off Hadi Bux and others however, the complainant told them that they could not be let off and were required in connection with a case. On this complainant party also took position and retaliated the firing which lasted for about ten minutes.
3. Thereafter they found that Mst. Noor Bano had also sustained fire-arm injuries and the rear mirror of the Van had also smashed. Accused Hadi Bux subsequently slipped away. Thereafter the complainant approached Police Station Sijawal and registered the case on behalf of the State.
4. ' The investigation followed and in due course the applicant was sent up to stand trial in the Court of law.
5. ' I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.
6. 'It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the case against his client is false who has been involved in the background of enmity and suspicion. It has also been contended that it is a case of clear hardship inasmuch as the applicant was arrested on 23-10- 2002 and till now he is in continuous custody but the trial has not yet concluded which comes to be two years and ten days but the case has not proceeded. It has also been contended that the charge was framed on 3-2-2003 but thereafter none of the witnesses turned up for the purpose of recording evidence and as such it is a case of clear hardship.
7. ' Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State concedes to the above legal position and raised no objection for grant of bail.
8. ' In the circumstances, application is granted and it is directed that applicant Ahmed Sultan son of Shah Nawaz Luhur be released on bail provided he furnishes solvent surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 (Rupees One lac only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
9. ' Criminal Bail Application No,328 of 2004 stands disposed of.