QAMAR-UZ-ZAMAN vs STATE and another
This matter arose out of a petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(vi), 341, 379, 411, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal issue before the Lahore High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of prolonged delay in concluding the trial, where the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution opposed bail, contending that the petitioner had a specific role in inflicting serious injuries and contributed to the trial's delay. The High Court observed that the petitioner had been incarcerated for more than four years following his arrest in January 2005, and despite numerous opportunities and court processes, the prosecution and complainant failed to produce witnesses. Holding that an accused person cannot be detained behind bars for an indefinite period due to alarming delay in concluding trial proceedings, the Court granted post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Can an accused be admitted to post-arrest bail primarily due to an unconscionable delay in the conclusion of trial where the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
- Whether an accused person can be kept behind bars for an indefinite period when the prosecution repeatedly fails to procure the attendance of its witnesses?
- Can bail proceedings be repeatedly adjourned on requests made by the counsel for the complainant?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 341, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 18 dated 16.1.2005 registered under Sections 324/337-F(i)/337-F(vi)/341/379/ 411/34 PPC at Police Station Shah Kot, District Sahiwal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was arrested on 27.01.2005 and sent to the judicial lock up on 07.02.2005. He further states that challan against him was submitted in Court on 8.2.2005. He states that more than four years have passed but the trial against the petitioner has not been concluded so far. Learned counsel further states that almost 100 opportunities have been given to the prosecution to produce their witnesses but they have failed to procure their attendance. He submits that the delay in the trial is alarming and the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period.
3. Learned DPG for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed this petition on the grounds that the petitioner is named in FIR and specific role of causing serious injury on the person of injured has been attributed to him. They also state that the petitioner is also contributing delay in the conclusion of the trial. A request for the adjournment of the case was made. They further submit that the offence alleged against the petitioner carries penalty, which falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and that in view of the above circumstances the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail.
4. Ch. Jahanzaib, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of Mr. Muhammad Khalid Mahmood Ayuz, Advocate for the complainant states that the peon of the learned counsel for the complainant has passed away and because of this reason he will not be able to attend this Court.
On 11.02.2009 the present case was fixed for hearing. Mr. Muhammad Khalid Mahmood Ayuz, Advocate appeared for the complainant and made a request that he has been engaged today and the case may be adjourned to provide him an opportunity to prepare his brief. On his request the case was adjourned for today. I am afraid that the bail matters are of urgent nature and these proceedings cannot be adjourned time an again.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it has been noticed by this Court that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 27.01.2005 since when he is behind the bars. More than four years have been passed but conclusion of the trial against the petitioner still in sight. The learned trial Court has repeatedly issued process to procure the attendance of the witnesses but the complainant has failed to produce them. It is really sad affair. An accused person cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period. The conclusion of this case is alarming. The petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for the grant of post arrest bail.
6. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate.