Rashid Ali vs The State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Rashid Ali, who was charged in FIR No. 114 dated 29.5.2004 under Sections 324, 337-D, 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the duration of his incarceration and the failure of the trial court to conclude proceedings within the timeframe previously directed by the High Court. During the investigation, the police deleted the more serious charges under Sections 324 and 337-D, leaving the petitioner facing lesser charges. The Court observed that the petitioner had been in custody since 6.7.2004 and that the trial remained incomplete despite prior judicial directions. Finding no valid explanation from the State for this delay, the Court held that the petitioner had established a case for bail. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds, emphasizing the statutory right to bail when trial proceedings are unduly delayed without justification.
- Does the deletion of serious charges during investigation provide grounds for granting post-arrest bail?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the trial court fails to conclude proceedings within the time directed by the High Court?
- Does the prolonged incarceration of an accused without the completion of trial entitle them to bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-D, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J. - The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail In case FIR No. 114, dated 29.5.2004 registered under Sections 324, 337-D, 337-F(i), 337-F(ii) and 34, P.P.C. At-P.S. City Vehari.
2. . According to the FIR, the allegation against the petitioner is that he armed with dagger alongwith Ameen empty handed inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant Saeed Ahmad.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was arrested on 6.7.2004 and since then is in jail; that during the investigation sections 324 and 337-D, PPC have been deleted by the police and challan has been submitted in the Court under the remaining sections which makes the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry and that the trial against the petitioner has not been completed by the Trial Court despite direction issued by this Court.
Reliance in this behalf is placed on Muhammad Aslam Vs. State (1999 SCM R 2147) and leaded Gul Vs. State (1998 SCM R 1124).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has half-heartedly opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner his earned his right to be released on bail on statutory ground.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 6.7.2004 and since then he is in jail. During investigation, Sections 324 and 337-D, PPC have been deleted by the police. the trail against the petitioner has hot been completed by the Trial Court despite direction issued by this Court. The learned counsel for the State is unable to give any explanation for non-compliance of the order dated 21.3.2005 passed by this Court. This being so, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate.