MURTAZA vs THE STATE and another
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Murtaza seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 509 of 2003 registered under sections 392/414 (later sections 395/412) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Khanpur. The core legal question involves whether the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail due to delay in the conclusion of the trial despite previous court directions and delayed involvement via a supplementary statement. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that since no material progress was made in the trial despite earlier directions and the petitioner was implicated through a delayed supplementary statement with unverified recoveries, he was entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that prolonged incarceration without material trial progress following court directives furnishes sufficient ground for granting post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the prosecution fails to conclude the trial within the timeframe directed by the court?
- Does the registration of subsequent cases against an accused disentitle him to bail in the primary case?
- Can implication through a delayed supplementary statement serve as a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 414, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SH. HAKIM ALI, J.--- Murtaza, petitioner, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,509 of 2003, dated 2- 12-2003, registered with Police Station City Khanpur, under sections 392/414, P.P.C. (sections 395/412 of the P.P.C. Were added later on).
2. On 2-12-2003 at about 3-00 p.m. An application was submitted by one Muhammad Yasin to S.H.O., Police Station City, Khanpur, District Rahimyar Khan with regard to an occurrence of dacoity/robbery/ trespass having taken place into the house of the informant. All the facts have already been noted in my order, dated 31-3-2006, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No,1358/B of 2005/BWP (Murtaza v. The State), as the petitioner had already filed the above noted application, which was disposed of on the said date i.e, 31-3-2006, while permitting a chance to the State to produce its evidence before the learned trial Court while the learned trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within two months and in case of failure of the prosecution to produce evidence, the petitioner was granted right to file second bail petition. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the arguments which the petitioner had submitted in this Court on 31-3-2006 may be considered along with this fresh ground that after grant of two months direction period, prosecution has not produced evidence before the learned trial Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the prosecution is bent upon to keep the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, as the police had already registered four cases after the instant case so as to involve the petitioner in more cases and keep him in jail for a longer period. The petitioner has not been convicted in any case and he was involved on the supplementary statement of the informant recorded on 20-1-2004 after about one month from the lodging of the F.I.R. Recovery of such articles has been planted upon the accused of unsewn cloths which cannot be considered to be a particular or specific article, having special identification and so connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. Therefore, the petitioner may be granted bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that the petitioner is involved in four other cases of the years 2003 and 2004. Therefore, he may not be granted bail.
5. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel and from the perusal of the record, it has been found that four cases were registered after the instant case of F.I.R. No,509 of 2003, while the petitioner was arrested upon the supplementary statement recorded on 20-1-2004 after about one month from registration of the F.I.R. And the petitioner having been arrested on 27-2-2004 and no material progress having been made in the case, despite direction of this Court, the petitioner is hence, entitled for grant of bail. Therefore, he is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (one hundred thousand rupees) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.