MUHAMAMD AKRAM JAVED alias BUTT vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial and having already undergone the maximum imprisonment prescribed for the offence. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the accused to post-arrest bail, holding that the petitioner had suffered incarceration for over two years while the trial remained at the initial stage, and noting that section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was not attracted and the chemical examiner's report showed the recovered substance was not adulterated. The key principle laid down is that protracted and delayed trial without fault of the accused, coupled with prolonged incarceration exceeding or nearing the maximum prescribed sentence, constitutes sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the trial is unduly delayed without his fault?
- Does prolonged incarceration exceeding two years during an inconclusive trial warrant the grant of bail in non-capital offences?
- Whether the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 are attracted to an offence under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 without evidence of sale or terrorism-related nexus?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ,J---The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,240, registered with Police Station Qutabpur, Multan on 11-9-2004 for an offence under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 read with section 7 of ATA, 1997.
2. The petitioner was arrested on 11-9-2004. I may note here that a learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Multan vide order dated 1-4-2005 gave a finding that he had no jurisdiction and no provision of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is attracted and he sent the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Multan. His bail application was rejected by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan on 25-5-2005. Thereafter, he filed Cr.M. No,3383-B-05 which was disposed of as withdrawn on 13-12- 2005 with a direction to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial within three months. This was not done. Again Cr.M. No,1982-B-06 was filed which was also disposed of as withdrawn on 10-7- 2006 with a direction to the trial Court to conclude the proceedings within two months. This has not been done.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no evidence of commission of any offence under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and his client has already undergone the maximum punishment of imprisonment prescribed under Article 4 of the said Order. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application.
4. This is rather an unfortunate case. It is not understandable as to how the police added section 7, ATA, 1997 in the F.I.R. There is no evidence of sale of the liquor and the learned State counsel states with reference to the police records that according to the report of the Chemical Examiner the liquor was not found to be adulterated. It is a matter of record that the petitioner has suffered more than two years of incarceration. Needless to State that the trial is still at the same stage. The Cr. M.
Is accordingly allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Teamed trial Court.