RIAZ KHANApplicant vs THE STATE
This is a criminal bail application filed by the applicant Riaz Khan seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No.119 of 2003 registered under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Jackson, Karachi. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given that the allegations against him were general in nature, no specific fatal injury was attributed to him, and he had been incarcerated for four years without the trial concluding. The Sindh High Court held that since the fatal injuries were attributed to co-accused persons and the applicant was only alleged to be present with general allegations not supported by direct role attribution in statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, coupled with the inordinate delay in the trial, the applicant made out a case for bail. The court laid down the principle that statutory delay in conclusion of trial combined with the absence of specific overt acts or fatal role attribution warrants the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused facing general allegations without attribution of fatal injuries is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does prolonged incarceration without the conclusion of trial constitute a ground for the grant of bail under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- What is the evidentiary value of statements recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the attribution of roles to an accused in a bail matter?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MRS. QAISER IQBAL, J.---Applicant Riaz Khan son of Safdar, has applied for post-arrest bail in Crime No.119 of 2003, under section 302, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Jackson, Karachi.
2. ' The facts succinctly narrated for the disposal of bail application are that aforementioned F.I.R. Was registered on the basis of the statement of complainant Gul Khan that his son Rehmatullah Khan was married with Anwar Jan's daughter. On account of domestic dispute they could not live happily, so much so that Anwar Jan's daughter Umaiza returned to her father house, who called upon Rehmat Ali Khan to visit his house on telephone. The complainant restrained his son not to visit but his elder brother's wife, both sons Rehmatullah Khan and Ehsanullah Khan went to the Anwar Jan's house, whereas complainant's brother Feroz also proceeded, as a result of fire opened by Anwar Jan, Rehmatullah Khan instantaneously died on the spot, complainant and his neighbour sustained injuries on left hand's finger, both victims were shifted to Ziauddin Hospital, where they were pronounced to be dead. The applicant is alleged, to be present on the spot connected in the commission of crime.
3. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that allegations levelled are general in nature, against the applicant, in fact it is a case of double version. Applicant is confined in jail from the last four years is entitled to enlarge on bail. It is next urged that principal accused Muhammad Anwar Khan is absconding, there is no chance for completion of trial in near future. It is next urged that P.Ws. Hadi Khan, Khursheeda Bano, Parveen, Noor Ahmed Khan and Mir Muhammad in their statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Did not attribute direct role to the applicant in the commission of the offence of murder.
4. ' Learned State counsel has opposed the bail application on the premises that occurrence had taken place at 10-00 p.m. Specific role is attributed to the applicant, therefore, he is entitled to concession of bail.
5. ' I have considered the contentions advanced at bar and gone through the record of the case.
6. It is spelled out that the allegations against the applicant are of general nature. The injuries caused to deceased Rehmatullah Khan and Ehsanullah Khan fatal in nature were directly attributed to co- accused Muhammad Anwar Khan, whereas his brother Feroz Khan had sprayed bullets upon the deceased after they fell down or the ground. No injury caused to the deceased was attributed to the applicant, confined in Jail from the last four years without trial is entitled to concession of bail.
7. In support of the above reliance is placed on the case of Yaroo v. The State (2004 SCM R 864), Shaboo alias Ali Khan v. The State (2006 M LD 178), Ghulam Rasool v. The State (2006 M LD 630).
8. ' In the above facts and circumstances, I have no option but to release applicant on bail upon furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
9. ' Before parting with this order, it will be proper to call for report from the trial Court to explain inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial, such report be submitted within 10 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Learned trial Court is further directed to expedite the matter day to day basis, conclude the trial within six months and submit such report for the perusal of this Court through Member Inspection Team-II.
10. ' The bail application stands disposed of accordingly.