ALI MUHAMMAD and another vs THE STATE
This bail application arose from a criminal case where the applicants, Ali Muhammad and Shabir Ahmed, sought post-arrest bail on the grounds of hardship due to prolonged incarceration. The applicants were charged under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for their alleged involvement in the murder of one Saboo. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail on the ground of hardship, given that they had been in custody for over three years without the prosecution examining any witnesses. The Sindh High Court, while acknowledging the delay in the trial, observed that the applicants were accused of a heinous crime and were specifically assigned the role of firing upon the deceased with Kalashnikovs. Consequently, the Court held that the severity of the allegations and the specific role attributed to the applicants outweighed the delay in the trial proceedings. The bail application was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that the ground of hardship does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, particularly in cases involving heinous offenses with specific incriminating allegations.
- Does prolonged incarceration without the examination of prosecution witnesses automatically entitle an accused to bail on the ground of hardship?
- Can an accused charged with a heinous offense be denied bail on the ground of hardship if they have been assigned a specific role in the commission of the crime?
- Is the court required to grant bail solely due to the delay in the conclusion of a trial when the accused is charged with a serious offense?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 193, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' FARRUKH ZIA G. SHAIKH, J.--- 1 and 2. By this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. Applicants Ali Muhammad and Shabir Ahmed by caste Jalbani, have sought bail on the ground of hardship, who are wanted in Crime No,67 of 2005 Police Station, Mirpur Mathelo, District. Ghotki registered for offences under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C.
2. ' In a nutshell, the prosecution story is that the case was initiated on an F.I.R. Lodged by complainant Riaz Ahmed by caste Jalbani on 17-6-2003 stating therein that about five years back Ranjan and Abdul Hameed both by caste Jalbani were murdered and such F.I.R. Was lodged. The brothers of applicant Ali Muhammad and his cousin Atta Muhammad used to issue threats that Saboo Jalbani has got Ranjan and Abdul Hameed murdered and they would kill him. On 17-6-2008 complainant Riaz Ahmed, his father Saboo (deceased), uncles Bhooral and Muhammad Ali were going to Mirpur Mathelo and at about 5-30 p.m. When they reached at the top of Saeed Khan Minor, one jeep approached. Atta Muhammad, Ameer Bux, Ali Muhammad (appellant) and Mumtaz all armed with kalashnikovs alighted from the jeep and applicant Shabir Ahmed armed with Kalashnikov also came there on a motorcycle. All the accused challenged that Saboo had got Ranjhan and Abdul Hameed murdered, therefore, they have come to take revenge. Accused Atta Muhammad and Ameer Bux made fires with their kalashnikovs, which hit Saboo who by raising cries and fell down. Thereafter, Ali Muhammad and Shabir Ahmed (applicants) also made straight fires at Saboo, which hit him on his back.
3. ' Mr. Maqbool Ahmed Awan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants has argued that applicants are in custody since 22-7-2005 while charge in this case, has been framed on 14- 11-2007 but till today prosecution has failed to examine any witness. He has further argued that there is no delay in conclusion of the trial, on the part of applicants or their counsel but the complainant himself is responsible for causing delay in conclusion of the trial, as he had moved an application under section 193, Cr.P.C. In order to delay the proceeding of the trial. He has also argued that the case diaries placed on record, fully support the case of the applicants on the ground of hardship, but the learned trial Court while rejecting the bail plea of applicants, did not take into consideration this aspect of the case. In the last, he has argued that applicants are not previously convicted or disparate dangerous criminals, therefore, keeping in view their long continuous detention in jail for last more than three years and two months would be wrong, and besides this, the prosecution has failed to conclude the trial of the applicants, they are entitled for bail on the ground of hardship during trial.
4. ' On the other hand, Mr. Agha Ather Hussain, Assistant Advocate-General appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed this bail application. While defending the State, he has argued that no doubt there is a delay in conclusion of the trial but the applicants are involved in heinous offence and they have been assigned specific role of firing with their respective weapons upon deceased Saboo, therefore, they do not deserve for extending the concession of bail on the ground of hardship.
5. ' I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, I have also perused the material available on record.
6. It is an admitted position that applicants are in custody since their arrest and till today not a single witness has so far been examined. But keeping in mind the allegation against the applicants as contained in the F.I.R. To the extent that they in company of other accused persons duly armed with kalashnikovs have committed brutal murder of deceased Saboo by making straight fires upon him with their respective weapons, I am not inclined to grant them bail on the ground of hardship and accordingly, their bail application is dismissed.
7. ' Bail application stands disposed of in the above terms.
Cited by 4 cases
- MEHBOOB vs The STATE 2014 MLD 641
- MURAD UR REHMAN vs The STATE and another 2014 P Cr. L J 61
- NAWAB vs THE STATE 2011 YLR 127
- MUHAMMAD AZIM and another vs THE STATE 2009 P Cr. L J 1314