SHABOO alias ALI KHAN vs THE STATE
This is a criminal bail application filed by the applicant, Shaboo alias Ali Khan, seeking post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant sought relief on the grounds of hardship, citing the principle of consistency, as co-accused persons had already been granted bail by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail due to the inordinate delay in the trial and the prosecution's failure to produce witnesses, despite the co-accused having been released. The Court observed that the applicant had been in continuous custody since his arrest in 2001, with no significant progress in the trial beyond the framing of the charge. Holding that the prosecution's failure to produce witnesses was unacceptable and that indefinite detention is impermissible, the Court granted the bail application. The judgment affirms the principle that an accused cannot be detained for an indefinite period due to the prosecution's failure to proceed with the trial, particularly when co-accused have been granted relief.
- Can an accused be granted bail on the ground of hardship due to inordinate delay in trial?
- Does the principle of consistency apply when co-accused have been granted bail in the same case?
- Is the prosecution's failure to produce witnesses a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, J.---Applicant Shaboo alias Ali Khan Shaikh seeks bail in Crime No,141 of 2001 of Police Station New Foujadari, under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C. On the sole ground of hardship. The bail plea of the applicant was declined by the learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur vide order dated 16-3-2005.
2. ' Contentions of Mr. Jai Jai Veshnu, Advocate for the applicant, is that co-accused Abdul Rahim and Suhail Ahmed have been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Bail Application No,550 of 2004, vide order dated 23-11-2004. According to him, the case of the applicant is identical to that of co- accused Abdul Rahim and Suhail Ahmed, who have been granted bail by this Court. He further contended that the applicant was arrested on 13-9-2001 and till date excepting framing of the charge in the case no further progress has been made. Referring to the case diaries placed on record, learned counsel further contended that even after the grant of bail to co-accused Abdul Rahim and Suhail Ahmed, the prosecution has failed to produce any witness. He, therefore, urged that it is a fit case, where the applicant has to be enlarged on bail on the ground of hardship as well as on the principle of rule of consistency.
3. ' Learned State counsel in view of the above legal position raised no objection to the grant of bail.
4. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and perused the record including the case diaries. The record reveals that the applicant after his arrest on 13-9-2001 has remained in continuous custody without any progress. Only the charge has been framed in the case. The perusal of case diaries reveals that even after grant of bail to co-accused by this Court the prosecution has not been able to produce a single witness. Such a conduct on the part of the prosecution is shocking and it is settled law that no one can be detained in jail for indefinite period.
5. ' In the circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that the applicant has been able to make out a case for bail, which is granted. The applicant be released on bail provided he furnishes surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
6. ' Criminal Bail Application No,S-383 of 2005 stands disposed of along with listed application.