HAMID ALI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged under the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, arising from a dispute involving money paid for a promised work permit to Dubai. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the delay in the trial proceedings, despite the State's contention that the accused was responsible for such delays. The Supreme Court observed that while bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right solely due to trial delays—especially where the accused contributes to those delays—the court must consider the totality of circumstances. The Court held that since the investigation was complete, the challan had been submitted, and the nature of the offence involved a monetary dispute, keeping the accused in custody for an indefinite period served no useful purpose, as the trial's conclusion remained uncertain. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition, granted bail subject to surety bonds, and directed that the petitioner's name be placed on the Exit Control List to prevent him from leaving the country pending trial.
- Can an accused claim bail as a matter of right solely because the trial has not proceeded?
- Is bail appropriate when the investigation is complete and the trial's duration is uncertain despite the accused's alleged role in causing delays?
- Does the court have the authority to place an accused on the Exit Control List as a condition for granting bail?
- Section 17, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 22, Emigration Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' It is informed by the learned prosecutor that in this case incident took place in October, 2004. F.I.R.
Under sections 17/22 E.O., 1979 was lodged on 4th April, 2006. In pursuance thereof accused was arrested on 26-6-2006 and challan against him has been submitted on 29th November, 2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that charge has not been framed so far, therefore, evidence has also not been produced by the prosecution to substantiate accusation. According to him he is in custody w,e,f, 26-6-2006 and the sentence provided under section, charge against him, is up to 14 years. Since no progress is being made in the case, therefore, he is entitled for grant of bail.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the State contended that challan has been submitted but he is not aware whether charge has been framed or not? According to him petitioner (accused) himself is responsible for causing delay in the trial of the case. Therefore, benefit of the same may not be extended to him by ordering his release on bail. It is true that in a criminal offence, merely for the reason that trial has not proceeded, bail as a matter of right cannot be claimed, particularly, when the facts and circumstances of the case are sufficient to conclude that the accused is responsible for not allowing the trial Court to proceed with the matter. However, keeping in view other facts and circumstances of the case, namely that the sentence under sections 17/22 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979 is up to 14 years, investigation of the case has been completed, challan of the case has been submitted, as per admission of both the sides and the transaction between the parties seems to be in respect of dispute of money, which stately petitioner and his son Bilal Ahmad (P.O.) had received from the complainant on the ground that he be sent to Dubai along with work permit, but he failed to meet his commitment fulfilled, we are of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody for an indefinite period, because it is not known that how much time will be consumed by the prosecution in completion of the trial.
4. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, petition is accepted and converted into appeal as a result whereof Hamid Ali son of Ch. Rehmat Ali is ordered to be released on bail, subject to furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 with two sureties (Rs,2,50,000) and P.R. In the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
5. It is however, observed that name of the petitioner will be placed on E.C.L. So he may not leave the country till completion of the trial against him.
Cited by 6 cases
- Reginald Chude Bjekwe, Nigerian National vs The State and another 2021 MLD 2028
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD and another vs STATE etc PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 170
- MUHAMMAD WAQAS alias DHILLU Versus State 2017 YLRN 436
- BABAR FAROOQ Versus State 2017 YLRN 313
- KARAMAT ALI Versus State Sohail Anwar 2017 PCrLJN 12
- Haji ZAHOOR AHMED Versus State 2013 YLR 2644