Shahbaz Ali vs The State
This matter comes before the Sindh High Court upon a repeated bail application filed by the applicant Shahbaz Ali, who was arrested in Crime No. 93 of 2006 registered under Section 392, Section 324, and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Preedy Karachi (South). The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay and hardship, given that the trial court failed to record the ocular account within the ninety-day timeframe previously ordered by the High Court. The court held that the applicant has been confined in jail for eighteen months, the material witnesses have not been examined despite sufficient time, and there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future, thus constituting a case of hardship. Consequently, the court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing solvent surety, laying down the principle that prolonged incarceration without progress in trial due to prosecution delays warrants the grant of bail on hardship grounds.
- Whether an accused is entitled to 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 completion of trial constitute a sufficient ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Can a repeated bail application be entertained when earlier directions for concluding the trial within a stipulated period 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
1. ORDER MRS. QAISER IQBAL, J.- 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 Trial Court, direction 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 Alt is entitled to concession of bail, accordingly admitted on bail, subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.