ALI AHMED vs THE STATE
This criminal bail application came before the Sindh High Court against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West, which had dismissed the applicant's post-arrest bail application. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail where the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the trial had been delayed without the prosecution producing any witnesses. The Court held that since the offences under Sections 392 and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., and the applicant had already suffered a protracted period of incarceration of over one and a half years while the prosecution failed to examine any witness, the case warranted the grant of bail. The Court laid down the principle that non-prohibitory offences coupled with prolonged incarceration and delayed trial without prosecution diligence constitute grounds for granting post-arrest bail.
- Whether an offence falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitles an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Does protracted incarceration without the prosecution producing any witness constitute a ground for the grant of bail?
- Is an order rejecting bail without recording proper reasons sustainable under the law?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. ' MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, J.---This criminal bail application has been filed against the order of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West dated 4-5-2006 wherein she had dismissed the bail application of the applicant.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that F.I.R. No,350 of 2004 was registered in S. I. T. E. (West) Police Station by complainant Abdul Manna that at about 0015 hours on 15-10-2004, three boys had robbed Rs,600 from his pocket and tried to escape. He had, however, apprehended one of the boys i.e, the applicant at the spot and recovered Rs,300 from him. While the other two culprits ran away. The applicant has been in jail since 15-10-2004.
3. ' The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in non-speaking order and she has not considered that the prosecution has failed to proceed with the case and produce even one single witness before the trial Court and the applicant has been in custody for more than one and a half years. He has prayed for the release of the applicant on bail.
4. ' Learned State Counsel has not seriously opposed the bail application.
5. I have examined the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge and found that she has not recorded any reason for rejecting the bail except that the applicant had been arrested at the spot and A recovery of cash of Rs,300 was made from him. In the challan offences have been shown as falling under sections 392/397, P.P.C. These offences do not fall under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. ' I had, therefore, vide a short order dated 4-7-2006 allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant on bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,10,000 and personal bond in the like A amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. ' These are the reasons for the above short order.
Cited by 7 cases
- Manzoom Hussain Versus State 2025 YLR 2444
- SAFEER AHMAD Versus State 2018 PCrLJN 40
- Syed ABID HUSSAIN SHAH vs The STATE 2017 MLD 1155
- ABDUL SHAKOOR vs THE STATE 2012 MLD 303
- MUHAMMAD ALAM vs THE STATE 2008 P Cr. L J 76
- Mr. Zamanullah for applicant. vs Mr. Zahoor Shah APG.
- Shafakat Ali vs State