SHAFI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal proceeding wherein the applicant sought pre-arrest bail in respect of F.I.R. Crime No. 86 of 2006 registered at Police Station Tando Ghulam Ali for an offence involving hatchet blows. The core legal question concerned whether pre-arrest bail was rightly declined by the Sessions Court to an aged, infirm, and incapacitated accused charged with an offense not carrying a sentence beyond three years, particularly when a co-accused was extended concessions. The Sindh High Court held that the Sessions Judge failed to exercise discretion justly and fairly, confirming the interim pre-arrest bail in view of the applicant's age, physical condition, the quantum of sentence, and the State's no-objection. The key principles laid down include that discretion in granting bail must be exercised fairly in cases involving elderly and incapacitated accused, and that the personal attendance of such an accused before the trial court may be dispensed with.
- Whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed for an aged and incapacitated accused when the State has no objection?
- Did the Sessions Judge fail to exercise discretion justly and fairly by declining bail to an accused charged with an offense not carrying a sentence beyond three years?
- Can the personal attendance of an infirm accused be dispensed with during trial?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.--- The applicant is accused of causing hatchet blows to the complainant as alleged in the I F.I.R., Crime No,86 of 2006, Police Station Tando Ghulam Ali.
2. ' The applicant by appearance is infirm and ailing person of advanced age. He is unable to move without help.
3. ' Learned State Counsel has outrightly stated no objection to confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail.
4. The interim pre-arrest to the applicant is accordingly, confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
5. ' It has been observed that the offence with which the applicant stands charged does not carry the sentence beyond three years and the case is being tried by Judicial Magistrate, yet the learned Sessions Judge declined bail to this 70 years old incapacitated person while the some concession was extended to co-accused. Seemingly the discretion was not exercised justly and fairly. Care should be taken in future.
6. ' For what has been observed above, the personal attendance of the applicant before the trial Court shall be dispensed with and he shall be entitled to be represented by the Advocate during trial. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.