ASMATULLAH vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Asmatullah, in connection with F.I.R. No. 110 of 2003, registered under Sections 392 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the grounds that the complainant had submitted an affidavit exonerating him and expressing a lack of interest in the prosecution. The State opposed the application, highlighting the petitioner's involvement in seven other similar criminal cases. The Court noted that while the petitioner had no prior convictions, his history of repeated involvement in similar offenses raised concerns about the potential for recidivism. Furthermore, the Trial Court reported that the delay in proceedings was attributable to the failure of the police to produce the accused, and that the trial could be concluded within six months. Consequently, the Court declined to grant bail, reasoning that releasing the petitioner would likely provide him an opportunity to commit further offenses. The application was dismissed with a directive to the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings and ensure the attendance of witnesses and the accused.
- Does the submission of an affidavit by a complainant exonerating the accused automatically entitle the accused to post-arrest bail?
- Can a court deny bail based on the accused's involvement in multiple other pending criminal cases despite the absence of prior convictions?
- What is the appropriate judicial response when trial delays are caused by the failure of the police to produce the accused?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJUM-UZ-ZAMAN, J.---Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.No,110 of 2003, dated 3-7-2003 for the offence under sections 392/412, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Tirkhanwala, District Sargodha, on the grounds that complainant of this case has sworn affidavit exonerating the petitioner and that he is no more interested in the prosecution of this case, though record of this case reveals that petitioner is involved in many other cases of like nature but admittedly there is no conviction against the petitioner in either of the said case; after his arrest petitioner was never put to the test of identificationparade to rule out the possibility of his false involvement in this case.
Conversely counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail application.
2. Heard. File perused.
3. Report, dated 7-11-2005 submitted by the Trial Court reveals that the case in hand would be disposed of within six months and the delay in disposal of the matter is due to non-production of the accused regularly by the police. Record of this case also reveals that petitioner is involved in almost seven cases of like nature and allowing bail to the petitioner in the circumstances would amount to provide him another opportunity to repeat such-like offences. In these circumstances I am not satisfied to entertain this application, the same stands disposed of with the direction to the Trial Court to proceed with the matter expeditiously and to take all measures to procure the attendance of the witnesses as well as the accused persons to conclude the trial within the stipulated period.