AKBAR alias BABLOO and another vs The STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two accused persons, Akbar alias Babloo and Munawar alias Munoo, who were charged with murder under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants, in custody since 2005, sought bail primarily on the grounds of hardship and the inordinate delay in the conclusion of their trial. The core legal question was whether the prolonged incarceration of the accused without the trial proceeding constituted sufficient grounds for the grant of bail, notwithstanding the serious nature of the allegations and the specific role attributed to them in the FIR. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, observing that they had been in custody for approximately four years without the trial making meaningful progress. The Court affirmed the principle that the right to a fair and speedy trial is a fundamental right, and that keeping an accused in jail for an indefinite period due to trial delays constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court, necessitating the grant of bail.
- Does a prolonged delay in the conclusion of a trial justify the grant of post-arrest bail for an offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the right to a speedy trial a fundamental right that can be invoked to seek bail when the trial has not proceeded for several years?
- Can an accused be denied bail solely on the basis of the gravity of the offence if the trial has been delayed indefinitely?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. ' FARRUKH ZIA G. SHAIKH, J. Applicants Akbar alias Babloo and Munawar alias Munoo both by caste Sial, have filed this Application under section 497, Cr.P.C. Seeking bail, who are wanted in F.I.R. Crime No,7 of 2005, registered at Police Station, Muhbatdero for an offence under sections 302, 34, P.P.C.
2. ' Succinctly, the prosecution story is that the case was initiated on a F.I.R. Lodged at the instance of Complainant Mukhtar Ali Sial on 16-1-2005. Stating therein that he used to study in Kandiaro College and they are four brothers, his other brothers are younger than him and that they reside with their father Buxial, who is a landlord. It is alleged in the F.I.R. That Munawar alias Munoo Siyal (Applicant), who is a ferocious person and an absconder, with whom, there is an old enmity going on, used to issue ihreats to commit murder of Bakhshal. The complainant and his other relatives were given invitation by Sahib Khan Siyal resident of village Mir Muhammad Siyal. On 15-1-2005 in the evening to attend the invitation, the complainant, his father Bakhshal, uncles Hakim Ali, Akhtiar Ali, and Shafi Muhammad went together and stayed night there. In the morning on 16-1-2005 Bakhshal father of Complainant, got up and went to the house of his maternal nephew to meet him and when he reached in the common street near the house of Miandad Siyal, it was about 8 am, the Complainant party heard some cries, on which, they and other persons attracted there while giving HAKALS. They saw Munawar alias Munoo, Akbar alias Babloo (Applicants) armed with Kalashnikov, whereas Mansoor and Haji alias Hajan armed with TT pistols, out of them Mansoor and Hajan caught hold of Bakshal by his arms while Munawar alias Munoo and Akbar alias Babloo (Applicants) made straight fires at Bakhshal, which hit him, who fell down by raising cries.
3. Thereafter, the Complainant party went over and found Bakhshal having sustained fire-arm injuries on his forehead and right side of forehead and had expired. Hence the F.I.R. Was lodged.
4. ' Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Khan Durrani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants has moved bail plea on the ground of hardship and delay. He has argued that the Applicants are in Jail since 2005 and facing hardship; that the prosecution is playing delaying tactics and the case is roaming from one Court to another, therefore, there is no possibility to proceed with the case; that it is yet to be determined whether the present Applicants are actually guilty of the offence or have been falsely implicated in the case as there is an admitted old enmity going on between the parties over an agricultural land belonging to applicants. He has further argued that the bail cannot be refused as a matter of punishment as held by the Honourable apex Court and that the Applicants are not convicted nor they are criminals and desperate persons. In support of above contention, he has relied upon the case of Abdul Majeed and 2 others v. The State (2003 M LD 19), Imran Khan alias Kami v. The State (2008 YLR 267) and Mahar Ali Shahi v. The State (2008 PCr.LJ 449).
5. ' Mr. Agha Ather Hussain, learned Assistant Advocate-General Sindh appearing on behalf of the State has opposed this bail application on the ground that specific role of firing upon the deceased has been attributed to the applicants and that the prosecution witnesses in their statements recorded under sections 161 and 164, Cr .P.C. Have fully implicated the Applicants that in presence of his son and cousin, the applicants have brutally committed the murder of deceased Bakhshal by. Making fires upon him. As such the applicants do no deserve any concession of bail on the ground of hardship.
6. ' I have considered the arguments of Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Khan Durrani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants and Mr. Agha Ather Hussain, learned Assistant Advocate- General Sindh appearing on behalf of the State and with their assistance I have also scanned the material available on the record very carefully.
7. This bail application is pressed mainly on the ground of hardship and delay. It has been noticed that in this case, the Applicants are in custody for last about four years, but, the case has not yet proceeded. Such a long delay in trial by itself, will be an abuse of the process of the Court as the fair and speedy trial is the fundamental right of the Applicants and no A one can be detained in jail for an indefinite period. In this respect, the law referred to above, fully supports the case of the Applicants.
8. For what has been discussed above, I am inclined to accept this Application and admit the applicants to bail, subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,500,000 (Rs, five lac) each and P.R.
9. Bond in the B like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
10. 'Bail application stands disposed of.