IRSHAD ALI vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed by the applicant, Irshad Ali, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, after 200 grams of Charas was allegedly recovered from his possession. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the statutory punishment involved, the delay in receiving the Chemical Analyzer's report, and the period already spent in incarceration. The Sindh High Court allowed the application and granted bail to the applicant, noting that he had already remained in jail for five months for an offence carrying a maximum punishment of two years, that the trial was not expected to conclude shortly due to pending cases, and that the prosecution had not yet received the Chemical Analyzer's report. The key principle laid down is that prolonged incarceration without significant progress in the trial, coupled with the absence of a forensic report and a non-prohibitory clause offence, constitutes a fit ground for the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the trial is likely to be delayed due to non-receipt of the Chemical Analyzer's report?
- Does incarceration for a substantial period in relation to the maximum sentence provided for an offence warrant the grant of bail?
- Can bail be granted under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 when the State raises no objection to the release of the accused?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
ORDER
1. ' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.--- On 19-7-2004 at 9-00 p.m., the complainant A.S.-I. Akhtiar Ali apprehended the applicant near his house in a street of Valeed Mohalla, Larkana and secured 200 grams of Charas from his possession. A sample was drawn from the property. The property was sealed. The applicant was arrested and such Mashirnama was prepared in presence of Mashirs.
2. The property and the accused/applicant were brought to the police station, where the A.S.-I.
3. Lodged the report under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. A bail application was moved before the trial Court, but the same was dismissed, hence the application.
4. ' The learned Advocate for the applicant has stated that the punishment provided under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, is 2 years; the case has been challaned and it is not expected to be decided very shortly because of the large number of cases pending before the trial Court, therefore, he has requested for the grant of bail. The learned State counsel conceded the above position and raised no objection to the grant of bail.
5. The applicant has been involved in the case for offence punishable under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, which carries punishment of 2 years only. The learned State counsel has stated that he has not received the Chemical Analyzer's report so far. As such, 5 months have passed, but still the report has not been sent to the prosecution enabling them to proceed with the case. As such, the case has already delayed for about 5 months. It is not known as to when the Chemical Analyzer's report will be received by the prosecution and the case will be posted for regular trial. The applicant has already remained in jail for a period of 5 months for an offence carrying punishment of 2 years.
6. ' In these circumstances, this is a fit case where the applicant can be released on bail.
7. Consequently, bail is granted to the applicant in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) on furnishing solvent surety with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. The application is allowed.