NASIR KHOKHAN vs THE STATE
This bail application arises from criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant, who was charged under Sections 395 and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant sought post-arrest bail, contending that he was falsely implicated due to a salary dispute with his employer, the complainant, and that he had been in custody since September 2004 without the framing of charges. The State opposed the application, citing the applicant's arrest on the spot. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of his detention and the nature of the alleged offense. Upon review, the Court observed that the applicant was no longer required for investigation and that the trial had been delayed for over ten months without the framing of charges. Furthermore, the Court determined that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant law. Consequently, the Court granted bail, holding that continued incarceration was not justified, and directed the applicant to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 200,000.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the offense charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Does the absence of charge framing after a significant period of detention constitute a ground for granting bail?
- Can bail be granted when the accused is no longer required for investigation purposes?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 511, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant was arrested on 25-9-2004 and it has been alleged that the applicant was arrested on the spot whereas the incident took place on 24-9-2004 and the F.I.R. Was lodged on 25-9-2004. He submits that on account of dispute with the complainant, who was his employer, the applicant was falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the applicant was asking for his six month's salary, which was refused, and the employer gave the applicant beating and got him arrested from his poultry farm. The applicant is being prosecuted under sections 395/511, P.P.C. The learned State counsel opposes the bail application on the ground that the application has been arrested on the spot.
2. ' I have heard both the learned counsel and have perused the record. The applicant has been arrested and is in judicial custody and is not required for investigation purpose. Even the charge has yet to be framed though more than ten months have passed. The case of the accused does not fall within the prohibitory clause. In these circumstances, the accused is granted bail in the sum of Rs,200,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 5 cases
- RASOOL BUX and 2 others vs STATE PLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Karachi) 767
- MUHAMMAD SALMAN Versus State 2016 YLRN 4
- ABID alias AABI ARAIN Versus State 2016 PCrLJN 109
- SHAH ALI alias SHAH MUHAMMAD vs STATE through Additional Adovcate, Mirpur 2012 PLJ AJ&K 172
- GHULAM RASOOL and another vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 923