ABDUL RAZZAK vs THE STATE
This bail application concerns the petitioner, Abdul Razzaq, who sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under sections 324, 337-H(2), 504, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the duration of his incarceration, the slow progress of the trial, and the treatment of co-accused persons. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the petitioner had been incarcerated for over two years, while only one out of fourteen prosecution witnesses had been examined, and the maximum punishment for the specific injury attributed to the petitioner was three years. Furthermore, the Court noted that co-accused persons, who were alleged to have played a similar role, had been excluded from the challan. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing the principle that prolonged pre-trial detention without significant progress in the trial, coupled with parity in treatment with co-accused, constitutes sufficient grounds for the grant of bail.
- Does the prolonged incarceration of an accused without significant progress in the examination of prosecution witnesses constitute a ground for bail?
- Can the release of co-accused persons with similar allegations be a factor in granting bail to the remaining accused?
- Is bail appropriate when the period of pre-trial detention is substantial relative to the maximum potential sentence for the charged offense?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' GULZAR AHMED, J.---Applicant Abdul Razzaq son of Allah Warayo, Marfani has sought bail from this Court in Crime No,27 of 2005 under sections 324 337-H(2), 504, 148, 149, P.P.C. Police Station, Jaggan alias Humayoon.
2. The allegation against the applicant is that he fired from his Kalashnikov at Nasir Ali, who was hit and got injured. It is stated that the injury sustained by Nasir Ali has been declared in the medical report that of Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Mutalhimah carrying punishment of three years and that out of 14 P. Ws. Named in the challan only one P.W. Has been examined while applicant is behind bars from 31-5-2005 which is almost more than two years.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that other co-accused who have also fired at the complainant party and have caused injuries, as alleged in the complaint, namely Mushtaque and Gul Bahar, have been let off by the police and their names have been shown in column No,2 of the challan.
4. Learned State counsel does not oppose the grant of bail to the applicants mainly on the ground that the accused is behind bars for more than two years and out of 14-P.Ws, shown in the challan, only P.W. Has been examined so far and that the injury carries maximum punishment of three years.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Admittedly the injury attributed to the applicant is that of Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Mutalhimah and in terms of section 337-F(iii), P.P.C. Carries maximum punishment of three years. The applicant is behind the bar for more than two years and almost 13-P.Ws are yet to be examined with three reserve witnesses. Co-accused Mushtaque and Gul Bahar, who are attributed similar role that of the applicant have been left off. I, therefore, consider these grounds to be sufficient to grant this bail application and direct him to be released on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
6. The bail application in the above terms, stands disposed of.