SHOUKAT ALI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who had previously been granted bail but subsequently absconded for approximately three years before being re-arrested. Following his re-arrest in March 2001, the applicant's repeated attempts to secure bail were rejected by both the trial court and the High Court, with the High Court initially directing the trial to conclude within one month. Despite extensions granted by the High Court for the trial's conclusion, the proceedings remained stagnant. The core legal question was whether, given the delay in trial and the applicant's prolonged incarceration since his re-arrest, the applicant was entitled to bail notwithstanding his prior conduct of jumping bail. The Court, noting the State's lack of objection and the unlikelihood of the trial concluding in the near future, held that the applicant should be released on bail. The ratio establishes that even where an accused has previously absconded, the right to bail may be reconsidered if the trial is unduly delayed and the accused has already served a significant period in custody, particularly when the maximum punishment for the offense is limited.
- Can an accused who previously jumped bail be granted bail again if the trial is unduly delayed?
- Does the lack of objection by the State influence the court's decision to grant bail to an absconder?
- Is the likelihood of a trial concluding in the near future a relevant factor in deciding a post-arrest bail application?
ORDER
1. ' ATTA-UR-REHMAN, J.--- According to the facts of the case the applicant was initially arrested in this matter some time in February-March, 1998. Thereafter he jumped the bail some time in August, 1997 and remained absconder for about three years and was arrested on 24-3-2001. He moved an application before the trial Court for bail which was rejected and thereafter he moved an application before this Court who too was rejected and a direction was given to the trial Court for concluding the trial within one month. However, the trial could not be concluded and therefore, he moved another bail application before the trial Court which was dismissed on 16-6-2001. In the meantime, the trial Court made reference to the High Court for extension of time for three months which time was allowed and expired on 7-9-2001. According to the counsel for the applicant there is no progress with the matter and the position is the same.
2. ' In view of the above circumstances/position, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has not objection if the bail is granted to the applicant.
3. ' I considered the submissions of the counsel. It is admitted position that on merits the applicant was allowed bail and thereafter absconded. The maximum punishment for offence is seven years.
4. The trial is not likely to conclude in near future. The applicant is already in custody since 24-3-2001.
5. The case reported in 1983 PCr.LJ 2600 is referred.
6. ' In the circumstances, he is allowed bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 and P.R.
7. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.