MUHAMMAD FAISAL vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed on behalf of the applicant Muhammad Faisal, who was apprehended at the spot by the police after allegedly attempting to commit robbery. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail considering the statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial, his continuous detention since his arrest, and the absence of any injuries sustained during the incident. The court held that since no person sustained any injury and the trial had not been concluded despite the applicant being in continuous custody since his arrest on 13 September 2006, the case law cited by the applicant was relevant and warranted the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that protracted incarceration without the conclusion of the trial, coupled with the absence of injuries in the alleged crime, constitutes sufficient ground for granting post-arrest bail.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when no injuries are sustained during the alleged crime and the trial has been unduly delayed?
- Does prolonged incarceration without the conclusion of the trial constitute a ground for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
ORDER
1. ' SALMAN ANSARI, J.---This bail has been moved on behalf of applicant/accused Muhammad Faisal who was apprehended on the spot by the police allegedly after attempting to commit robbery of the complainant, Mansoor Alam Baig on 13-9-2006 at about 0346 hours Boat Basin Clifton, Karachi.
2. The complainant after closing his hotel was sitting in his car when three boys approached him and sat inside the car after pointing pistol asked him to hand over whatever he had in his possession.
3. Meanwhile, when a friend of the complainant and one sweeper of the area saw the incident and put up resistance meanwhile, the police arrived at the spot and apprehended the applicant while two of his companions managed to escape while firing. Previous bail application was rejected by the learned 1st Additional Session Judge, Karachi South by his order dated 26-7-2008 on the following reasons:- ' I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments made by learned counsel and gone through the material available on record which reflects that whatever grounds for bail have been argued by the learned counsel for the accused amounts to deeper appreciation of evidence which is not permissible by law at bail stage. Further it appears that the accused has been identified by the complainant Mansoor Alam as well as other P.W. Muhammad Akhlaq during their evidence before the court. Recovery of incriminating articles was effected in presence of private witnesses including said PW Muhammad Akhlaq. In such situation, on the tentative assessment of the facts and circumstances, prima facie accused has fairly been connected with the commission of crime, therefore, I hereby declined to grant bail to the applicant/accused at this stage and dismiss the present application...
4. ' Learned counsel for applicant/accused has argued that no one was injured, no empty was recovered and the applicant has been falsely implicated as he was in service at hotel of complainant and had come to receive his dues of Rs, 20,000 but on such altercation complainant falsely implicated the applicant in this case. The case requires further enquiry, hence be allowed.
5. He relied on 2008 M LD 178 (Shahbaz Ali v. The State) where accused is shown confined in jail since last 18 months the directions were given for recording evidence, but not complied with, hence bail was allowed. In 2005 YLR 3219 (Walidino alias Guddo v. The State) where no injures were sustained in spite of sections 324 & 353, P.P.C. Bail was granted, 1998 SCM R 454 Muhammad v. The State in a case of ineffective firing bail was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as no injury was sustained by the any person. Learned State counsel has opposed the bail application.
2. Considering the arguments learned counsel for applicant/ accused, learned State counsel and law cited in this case as no person has sustained any injury and considering that the trial has not been concluded and the applicant is in continuous custody since the time he was arrested on 13- 9-2006, the case law cited being relevant and to the point, I allow this bail application. Let the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing his surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and executing PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court.