KHIZAR HAYAT vs THE STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Khizar Hayat, in connection with F.I.R. No. 223/2007, registered for various offences including attempted murder and abduction. The petitioner, who had been incarcerated since July 2007, sought bail on the grounds of inordinate delay in the trial and the principle of consistency, noting that co-accused persons had already been granted bail. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the lack of progress in the trial and the specific evidentiary circumstances regarding the alleged abductee. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, emphasizing that an accused cannot be detained indefinitely without trial progress. Furthermore, the Court noted that the alleged abductee's statement contradicted the complainant's version, rendering the case one of further inquiry. Applying the principle of consistency, the Court granted bail to the petitioner, as similarly situated co-accused had previously been released. The Court established that prolonged incarceration without trial progress, combined with evidentiary inconsistencies, justifies the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Does the principle of consistency apply to the grant of bail when co-accused have already been released?
- Can an accused be kept in custody indefinitely when there is no progress in the trial?
- Does a contradiction between the complainant's version and the statement of an alleged abductee make a case one of further inquiry for bail purposes?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
'HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Khizar Hayat son of Ramzan, petitioner, through this petition under section 497 Cr.PC, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,223 dated 19-7-2007, registered with Police Station Sarai Sidhu, District Khanewal for offences under sections 324/365- B/379/337- A(ii)/337-L(ii)/337-H(ii)/ 337F(ii)/452/148/149 P. P. C . The petitioner has been declined bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirwala, vide order dated 17-9-2009. Hence this petition.
2. Allegation as narrated in the F.I.R. Is that he along with his co-accused fired with his .12 bore. Gun which hit on the head of Allah Bakhsh, father of complainant Ghulam Abbas.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 31-7-2007 and since then he is behind the bars; that challan was submitted firstly on 20-8-2007 against the petitioner and thereafter against the other co-accused Muhammad Sharif on 20-3-2009 and since then there is no progress in the trial; that Mst. Azra, the alleged abductee was abducted by complainant Ghulam Abbas himself when the negotiations were being made for the return of said Mst. Azra, whose husband Umar Hayat is brother of the present petitioner; that the this Court allowed bail to co-accused Umar Hayat and Bashir Ahmad vide order dated 24-9-2008 in Criminal Miscellaneous No,1843-B of 2008; that allegation of abduction of Mst. Azra seems to be very grotesque and astonishing that Umar Hayat who married with the said lady Mst. Azra was abducted on 21-10-2002. Submits that keeping the principle of consistency the petitioner will also be entitled to the post arrest bail.
4. The learned DDPP has vehemently opposed the petition for grant of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly the petitioner is behind the bars since 31-7-2007 and there is no progress in the trial. The petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period. The alleged abductee Mst. Azra, wife of Urnar Hayat who is brother of the petitioner, did not support the statement of the complainant. In fact, Mst. Azra was abducted by the complainant who got prepared bogus Nikahnama. Factually Mst. Azra had married with Umar Hayat brother of the petitioner on 21-10-2002. Statement of the alleged abductee that she was not abducted by the petitioner of his brother Umar Hayat makes the case of the petitioner that of further inquiry. Umar A Hayat and Bashir Ahmed have been allowed bail, therefore on the principle of consistency the petition is also entitled to be released on bail.
6. In the light of the above discussion, the petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds by the petitioner in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.