KARIM BUX alias ABDUL HAFEEZ alias MUHAMMAD HASSAN and others vs THE STATE
This bail application arose from the arrest of the applicants in Crime No. 18 of 2004, involving charges under sections 324, 353, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants, arrested on April 1, 2004, following an alleged police encounter, sought bail on the grounds of merit and, crucially, hardship due to the trial court's failure to conclude proceedings within the timeframe previously directed by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the continued incarceration of the accused, despite the trial court's failure to expedite proceedings as ordered, warranted the grant of bail. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, emphasizing that an accused cannot be detained indefinitely without trial. The Court observed that the trial court had failed to comply with earlier directions to examine witnesses within three months, and the lack of progress was not attributable to the accused. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that prolonged incarceration without trial, where the delay is not caused by the accused, constitutes a valid ground for bail.
- Does the failure of the trial court to conclude a trial within a previously directed timeframe constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
- Can an accused be kept in jail for an indefinite period without trial?
- Is the absence of progress in a trial, where the delay is not attributable to the accused, a sufficient basis for granting bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, J.---Through this application applicants/ accused seek bail in Crime No.18 of 2004 P.S. Mouladad registered for an offence under sections 324, 353 and 412, P.P.C. Bail plea advanced on behalf of the applicants/accused was declined by the trial Court on 13-11-2004.
2. ' Briefly, the facts of the case are that on receiving spy information complainant Imtiaz Ahmed Khoso, S.H.O. Police Station, Mouladad took a police party consisting of H.C. Ali Dost, P.C. Sakhawat, P.C. Ghulam Nabi, P.C. Muhammad Hassan and P.C. Abdullah and proceeded at the spot in a private vehicle driven by P.C. Manzoor Ahmed. At 10-50 a.m. They found the applicants riding a motorcycle. As soon as the police party came on the road, the culprits stopped the motorcycle and after taking shelter opened fire at the police party from their Kalashnikov and T.T. Pistol. There was exchange of fire, for about 15/20 minutes. One of the culprits raised a cry and raised his hands up along with T.T. Pistol. It was found that another culprit was lying injured on the ground. They were apprehended and Kalashnikov and T.T. Pistol were secured from their possession and report was lodged at Police Station at 11-45. a.m.
3. ' After usual investigation, the applicants were sent up to stand trial where bail plea advanced on their behalf was declined on 13-11-2004.
4. ' I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material brought on record. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that as far as merits or the case are concerned the prosecution witnesses are police officials and subordinates to the complainant hence they are interested, set up and hostile to the present applicants. He further submits that the incident occurred in a day time at busy place as well as the complainant was having prior spy information even then he failed to associate private Mashirs; that it is improbable that an encounter took place for 15/20 minutes from a close range, but complainant did not receive any fire-arm injury. He further contended that the trial Court has failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court to examine the witnesses within 3 months hence the applicants/accused have earned right of bail on the ground of hardship. In support of his submission he has relied upon following case-laws: ' 2005 PCr.LJ 699, 1999 SCM R 2147 and 1996 PCr.LJ 1573.
5. ' Learned Asstt. A.-G. Submitted that applicants accused were arrested on 1-4-2004 at the spot along with 65 empties of 7.62 and 15 empties of .30 bore. In view of such submission, he states that applicants are not entitled to bail.
6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and properly assessed the material brought before me. It appears that while rejecting bail plea of applicants/ accused on merits, on 21-7-2004 this Court had issued directions to the trial Court to expedite the matter and examine witnesses within 3 months. In this regard, progress report was summoned from the trial Court which shows that no progress has been made towards trial mainly for want of attendance of complainant and P.Ws. And other lacunas which does create fault on the part of accused party. Applicants/ accused were arrested on 1-4-2004 and are in jail continuously without trial. It is settled principle of law that accused cannot be put in jail for an indefinite period without trial.
7. ' For what it has been discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that applicants have been able to make out a case for bail which is granted provided they furnish solvent surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
8. ' Criminal Bail Application No.836 of 2004 stands disposed of.