NAZAR MUHAMAMD etc vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioners in FIR No. 302/07, registered under Sections 365-B, 452, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail due to the inordinate delay in the conclusion of their trial, despite a prior court direction to expedite proceedings. The Court observed that the charge had been amended to Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which carries a maximum sentence of seven years, and that the petitioners had already been incarcerated for one year and eight months without a verdict. The Court held that the petitioners' right to a speedy trial had been violated, emphasizing that the fundamental rights to life and liberty, protected under Articles 9 and 5 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, cannot be infringed without due process. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that an expeditious trial is an inherent right of every accused person, and prolonged incarceration without trial warrants the grant of bail.
- Does an inordinate delay in the conclusion of a trial entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Is an expeditious trial considered an inherent right of an accused person under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can the fundamental right to liberty be restricted without due process when a trial is unreasonably delayed?
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Article 9, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Article 5, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks post arrest bail of petitioners in FIR No,302/07, dated 17.12.2007, under Sections 365-B, 452, 148 and 149 PPC, registered at P.S. Miani, District Sargodha.
2. Briefly, according to the FIR, the complainant along with his brother, nephew and other members of family were present in his Haveli; that petitioners and other 13 nominated co-accused and 5/6 unknown accused forcibly entered into Haveli. All the accused were armed with firearms. The accused persons forcibly abducted Mst. Razia Bibi, niece of the complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though petitioners were arrested on 31.12.2007 yet charge has not been framed. The charge from Section 365-B has been amended to 365 PPC; that the trial Court was directed to complete the trial in four months on 26.9.2008 in Crl.
Misc. No,8140-B/08 but this Court yet the trial has not been completed.
4. According to the learned Deputy Prosecution General Punjab and the learned counsel for the complainant, petitioners themselves are responsible for delaying the trial.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The punishment under Section 365 PPC may be awarded up to 7 years. In this case, petitioners have already served out one year and eight months without a trial verdict of sentence. The speed of the trial Court which is visible from the record shows that it is not likely to be concluded in near future. The right of speedy trial has been denied to the petitioner in this case. While dealing with case of bail, the requirement and demand of Article 9 read with Article 5 of the Constitution cannot be lost the sight. According to which life and liberty are very precious fundamental rights which cannot be taken away save in accordance with law. Expeditious trial is an unwritten right of every, accused person.
6. In view of the above, this bail application is allowed subject to petitioners' furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs,80,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court or Area Magistrate.