RASHID ALI vs THE STATE
This post-arrest bail petition arose from a criminal case registered under Sections 324, 337-D, 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the petitioner was accused of inflicting dagger injuries on the complainant. The core legal questions before the High Court were whether the deletion of major offenses during investigation rendered the case one of further inquiry, and whether the petitioner was entitled to bail due to the trial court's failure to conclude proceedings despite explicit directions from the High Court. The Lahore High Court held that because the police had deleted the major offenses (Sections 324 and 337-D) and the trial had not been completed despite a previous judicial directive, the petitioner had earned his right to be released on bail. The Court laid down the principle that an unexplained delay in completing a trial, especially in violation of specific High Court directions and where major charges have been dropped, justifies the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Does the deletion of major penal offenses during police investigation make a case fit for further inquiry under bail provisions?
- Can a petitioner be granted bail on the ground of delay if the trial court fails to conclude the trial despite specific directions from the High Court?
- What is the effect of the prosecution's failure to explain non-compliance with a High Court order directing the expeditious conclusion of a trial?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-D, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.--- The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,114, dated 29-5-2004 registered under sections 324, 337-D, 337-F(i), 337-F(ii) and 34, P.P.C. At Police Station City Vehari.
2. According to the F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioner is that he armed with dagger along with Ameen empty-handed inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant Saeed Ahmad.
3. Learned- counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was arrested on 6-7-2004 and since then is in jail; that during the investigation sections 324 and 337-D, P.P.C. Have been deleted by the police and chailan has been submitted in the Court under the remaining sections which makes the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry and that the trial against the petitioner has not been completed by the trial court despite direction issued by this Court. Reliance in this behalf is placed on Muhammad Aslam v. State 1999 SCM R 2147 and Jadeed Gul v. State 1998 SCM R 1124.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has halfheartedly opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner has earned his right to be released on bail on statutory ground.
5. ' Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 6-7-2004 and since then he is in jail. During investigation, sections 324 and 337-D, P.P.C. Have been deleted by the police. The trial against the petitioner has not been completed by the trial Court despite direction issued by this Court. The learned counsel for the State is unable to give any explanation for noncompliance of the order, dated 21-3-2005 passed by this Court. This being so, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate.