NADEEM MASIH vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the High Court through a bail application filed by the applicant impugning an order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, whereby the applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under allegations of dacoity and snatching at firearm point. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of statutory delay in the trial, notwithstanding the recovery of the crime weapon and snatched property at the spot. The court held that while the merits of the case involving street crime and spot arrest do not ordinarily warrant bail, an accused cannot be incarcerated indefinitely without progress in the trial. Finding an unexcused delay of seventeen months in the proceedings attributable to the prosecution, the court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant subject to furnishing heavy surety. The key principle laid down is that protracted and unjustified delay in the conclusion of a trial constitutes a sufficient ground for the grant of bail, even in cases involving heinous or rampant street crimes where recovery has been made from the accused.
- Whether an accused is entitled to bail on the ground of prolonged delay in the conclusion of the trial when the delay is not attributable to him?
- Does the recovery of the crime weapon and snatched property at the spot disentitle an accused to bail when there is an inordinate delay in the trial proceedings?
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SYED MEHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, J.---By this bail application, the applicant has impugned the order dated 27-3-2008 passed by learned IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge,
2. Brief facts of the case, as per contents of F.I.R. Lodged by one Sabir Khan, are that on 6-3-2007 the complainant was returning from Mazar of Noori Shah Baba to his house and at about 3-30 p.m.
When he reached near Waqas Gas, Morton Road, suddenly two boys emerged there and on the strength of fire-arm they snatched one mobile Phone Nokia 6510 and pursue containing cash of Rs,150 and other documents and after extending threats they tried to fled away. In the meantime one police mobile reached there, whereupon the complainant raised commotion and informed the matter to S.I. Khan Bahadur.. Police party along with the complainant chased the accused persons and succeeded to arrest applicant Nadeem Masih and recovered from his possession one pistol and the snatched mobile phone. The applicant disclosed the name of his companion as Abid Masih. Thereafter challan was submitted before the concerned Court.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the accused/applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case, that despite the place of occurrence being a thickly populated area, not single private witness has been associated as mashir, as such there is violation of section 103, Cr.P.C., that no identification parade was held, that the accused applicant is in the custody for the last about 17 months and despite the lapse of such a long time, no substantial progress has been made in the proceedings.
4. Conversely, Ms. Afsheen Aman, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the grant of bail contending that the accused/applicant was arrested at the spot and crime weapon and the snatched mobile phone was recovered from his possession, that the street crimes are increasing alarmingly now-a-days, as such the applicant deserves no leniency.
5. I have given anxious thought to arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned State counsel and perused the record.
6. So far as merits of the case are concerned, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant as this is a routine crime in mega city and almost 90% of citizens are being looted by criminals by snatching their purses and the mobiles etc. However, at the same time, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that only disposal of the case is a vested right of every accused and the accused cannot be allowed to be put behind the bars without any progress in the proceedings. In the present case, despite lapse of about 17 months no progress has been made in the case. The learned counsel for the State has not been able to justify the inordinate delay caused in the disposal of the case, nor has attributed the same to the accused.
' In the above circumstances, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. However, as stated above, the offences being of routine nature and spreading like chronic disease, heavy surety is required to be furnished by the accused. Accordingly, bail is granted to the applicant in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 (Rupees Five Lac only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.