MUHAMMAD AKBAR alias GHULAM AKBAR vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Akbar, who was charged under Section 324 and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly firing at a complainant with a carbine, causing a head injury. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the grounds that the trial court failed to conclude proceedings within the four-month period previously directed by the High Court, and that he had been incarcerated for over fifteen months. The core legal question was whether the failure to conclude a trial within a court-mandated timeframe automatically entitles an accused to bail. The Court held that the petition was meritless and dismissed it. It reasoned that the petitioner was specifically named in the F.I.R. with a direct role, and the medical evidence corroborated the ocular account. Crucially, the Court established that bail cannot be granted solely on the ground of the trial's delay beyond a stipulated period, as the statutory provisions previously guaranteeing such rights are no longer in force, and each bail application must be decided on its specific facts.
- Can bail be granted solely on the ground that the trial was not concluded within a court-mandated timeframe?
- Does the expiry of a previously ordered period for trial conclusion create an automatic right to bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail where the offence falls within the prohibitory clause and the accused is specifically named with a direct role?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J - Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in the case, F.I.R. No, 144 dated 17-5-2005 under section 324/34 of P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Khangarh, District Muzaffar Garh.
2. Precisely the allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he fired at the complainant with a carbine hitting his head.
3. In support of this application the learned counsel for the petitioner has. Contended that the alleged eye-witnesses being the residents of another village are not natural witnesses of this occurrence; that despite the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 11-5-2006 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No,939-B of 2006 the trial Court has failed to conclude the trial within the prescribed period of four months; that the petitioner has been languishing in jail for a period of one year and three months; that empty shell was not recovered from the spot and that two of the co- accused of the petitioner have been found innocent, therefore, the case of the petitioner also requires further inquiry. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance upon cases reported as Muhammad Yaqoob v. The State (PLJ 2005 Criminal Cases Lahore 428), Azhar Ali v. State (2001 YLR 2601) and 1999 SCM R 2147.
4. After hearing the arguments of both the parties I have observed that the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and even otherwise it is established law that each case has to be decided keeping in view particular facts of said case. As far as case of Muhammad Aslam v. The State (1999 SCMR 214) is concerned it related to a case which was governed by the provisions guaranteeing the right of bail on the ground of expiry of statutory period. Said provisions are no more available on the statutory books, therefore, bail cannot be granted simply on the ground that the trial has not been concluded within the stipulated time as directed by this Court.
5. The petitioner is duly named in the F.I.R. With a specific role. He had caused fire-arm injury on the head of the injured P.W. Who survived just by sheer luck. The medico-legal certificate duly supports the ocular version. The intention of any accused is always judged by considering the weapon of offence used by the offender, and the seat of injuries received by the injured or deceased. Without delving deeper into the facts of the case lest it may prejudice the case of either party, it is observed that the petitioner is involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause. Injured P.W. Is duly corroborating the version given in the F'LR. No case for bail is made out. Consequently this petition is found to be meritless and is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs THE STATE and another 2010 P Cr. L J 379