SHAHBAZ ALI vs STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicant Shahbaz Ali in Crime No. 93 of 2006 registered under Sections 392, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Preedy, Karachi. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of statutory hardship and delay, given that the trial court failed to record the ocular evidence within the timeframe previously stipulated by the High Court. The Sindh High Court accepted the bail application and held that the prolonged incarceration of the applicant for eighteen months coupled with the non-examination of material witnesses and the unlikelihood of the trial concluding in the near future constitutes a case of hardship. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to conclude material witness testimony within the timeframe ordered by the court and the accused suffers prolonged incarceration without the trial concluding soon, the accused becomes entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail on hardship grounds.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of hardship when the trial court fails to record evidence within the time specified by the High Court?
- Does prolonged incarceration without the likelihood of trial conclusion in the near future constitute sufficient ground for granting bail?
- Can an accused repeat a bail application before the High Court when earlier directions for expeditious conclusion of trial are not complied with by the prosecution?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Applicant Shahbaz Ali son of Mujahid Hussain, has repeated for bail application in Crime No, 93/2006, under Section 392/324/34 P.P.C. registered at P.S. Preedy Karachi (South). His bail plea was earlier rejected by this Court in Crime No, 113/06 vide order dated 26.3.2007, whereby the trial Court was directed to record ocular account within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order.
2. The prosecution case emerged on the basis of the statement of complainant Muhammad Jamil, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stating there that he was engaged in the business of old parts of the computer. On the fateful day went to Pakistan Chowk, while he was making a call on mobile phone to the shopkeeper, two young boys came on motorcycle, on show of force directed the complainant to hand over his mobile phone. Complainant due to fear had delivered the mobile phone, in the meanwhile police mobile came apprehended the applicant, while his, companions managed to flee away.
3. Mr. Ali Ahmed Junejo, learned counsel for the applicant has contended that despite of the directions of this Court prosecution have failed to examine the ocular account comprising of three witnesses although sufficient time was allowed to the prosecution to complete the case within the specified time vide order dated 26.3.2007. It is further contended that case diaries revealed that on each date of hearing the counsel appearing for the applicant was in attendance of Court, witnesses namely, HC-Shafqat and PC-Jamal were present on 27.7.2007, but the matter was adjourned due to paucity of time, witnesses were bound down, subsequently, the applicant has proceeded to repeat the bail application.
4. Learned state counsel has opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant was caught on the spot, recovery of mobile from his possession in presence of mashirs was effected.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced at bar.
6. There is no cavil to the effect that edifice of the case is built on the statement of the complainant Muhammad Jamil and the mashire of the recovery. The applicant is confined in jail from last 18 months, the charge was framed by the trial, directions for recording the evidence has not been complied with. In any view of the matter, it is a case of hardship when material witnesses could not be examined nor there is likelihood of the completion of trial in near future.
7. Keeping in view of the attending circumstances of the case, applicant Shahbaz Ali is entitled to concession of bail, accordingly admitted on bail, subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.