IMRAN KHALID vs STATE
This criminal petition was filed by Imran Khalid seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the abduction and murder of the complainant's son. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial spanning fourteen years, and by extension of the rule of consistency given that co-accused had already been released on bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's continuous detention as an under-trial prisoner for about fourteen years, without the delay being attributable to him, alongside the fact that co-accused had already been granted bail, entitled him to relief under the rule of consistency. The court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing that prolonged and unjustified incarceration without trial conclusion warrants the grant of bail.
- Whether inordinate delay in the conclusion of a trial entitles an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Does the rule of consistency apply when co-accused facing the same charges have already been granted bail?
- Can an accused who has suffered continuous detention for fourteen years as an under-trial prisoner be released on bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. Through the instant petition Imran Khalid, petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No, 14 of 1991 registered on 13.1.1991 under Sections 302/201,'34 P.P.C. with Police Station New Multan on the complaint of one Khair Din son of Aziz-ud-Din.
2. 2.Briefly the prosecution case is that on 10.1.1991 at about 5.00 p.m. the petitioner and his co- accused had abducted Muhammad Ehsan-ul-Din, son of the complainant and thereafter they murdered him.
3. 3.The petitioner and his co-accused were convicted by the learned Special Court, constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities, 1975, Multan in offences under Section 365-A PPC vide judgment dated 5.10.1991. The appeal against the said conviction was dismissed having become infructuous on 4.2.2003 by the Division Bench of this Court. As the petitioner and his co-appellant had already undergone whole of the quantum of sentence.
4. 4.The Special Court, Multan when convicted the petitioner and his co-accused under Section 365- A PPC in its judgment also mentioned that he may be separately tried under Section 302/201 34 PPC for the murder of said deceased. The petitioner's earlier bail filed before Syed Imam Ali Shah.
5. Addl. Sessions Judge, Multan was dismissed vide order dated 18.9.2004.
6. 5.It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no direct evidence of murder against the petitioner, there is only evidence of last scene and extra judicial confession, which is a very week type of piece of evidence. The petitioner has suffered about 14 years continuous detention as under trial prisoner and yet the trial has not been concluded. The charge was framed on 10.4.2003 and Mr. Javed Majeed, Advocate was deputed by the trial Court on State expense to defend the petitioner. Since 12.5.2003 no evidence has been recorded and petitioner is not responsible for this delay. He has further argued that case of the petitioner is at Par with the remaining co-accused who had already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 20.5.2003 and 2.7.2003. They were granted bail on the ground of delay in concluding trial. It is further argued that under the law of consistency the petitioner deserves the same concession which has been extended to his co-accused. The petitioner is in the judicial lockup for the last 14 years. He is no more required for any purpose.
7. 6.On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the bail petition on the ground that the petitioner alongwith his co-accused on the same fact was tried under Section 365-A PPC and found guilty therein. He is nominated in the FIR and there is sufficient material to connect him with the murder of the deceased.
8. 7.I have carefully considered the submission made by both sides with the help of available record.
9. The petitioner alongwith co-accused was tried under Section 365-A PPC in the instant case by the Special Judge, constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities, 1975 and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The said Court in its judgment of conviction and sentence observes that separate challan against him in offences under Sections 302, 210, 34 PPC may be submitted before the competent Court and as a consequences of the same he is presently facing trial of the instant case in the challan submitted against him under Sections 302, 201, 34 PPC. Since the date of his arrest he has continuously been detained and his period of detention as under trial prisoner in offence under Sections 302, 201, 34 PPC is about 14 years. There is no possibility of the completion of the trial in the near future. The delay caused in the conclusion of trial cannot be attributed to the petitioner as is apparent from the record.
10. 8.This inordinate delay in conclusion of his trial spread over a period of 14 years entitles him to the relief prayed for. His co-accused had already been released on bail by this Court in Crl. Misc No, 372-B-03 and in Crl. Misc. 1289 of 2003 vide order dated 20.5.2003 and 2.7.2003 respectively. His case is quite identical to the case of his co-accused. He is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the same as per rule of consistency.
11. 9.I, therefore, accept this petition and admitted the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.