MUHAMMAD JAVAID vs THE STATE
This criminal petition was filed by Muhammad Javaid seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 352 registered under sections 392 and 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ferozewala, District Gujranwala. The core legal question concerned whether the continued incarceration of the petitioner without any progress in his trial warranted the grant of post-arrest bail, particularly after two prior bail petitions had been dismissed. The Lahore High Court held that the continued custody of the petitioner in jail for over two years without any progress in the trial, coupled with the absence of prosecution witnesses and lack of identification records for the alleged recovered property, rendered further detention unconscionable. The petition was accordingly allowed, admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing the requisite security bonds.
- Whether delay in the commencement and progress of a trial constitutes a sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail in a subsequent petition?
- Does the absence of prosecution witnesses despite coercive measures justify releasing an accused on bail after prolonged incarceration?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-J, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASIF SAEED KHAN, KHOSA, J.--Through this petition Muhammad Javaid petitioner has sought post- arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 352, registered at Police Station Ferozewala, District Gujranwala on 23- 10-2007 in respect of Offences under sections 392/337-J, P.P.C.
2. The petition in hand happens to be the third petition filed by the petitioner before this Court seeking the same relief in the selfsame criminal case. His first petition (Criminal Miscellaneous.
No,5447-B of 2009) had been dismissed by this Court on 2-6-2009 and his second petition (Criminal Miscellaneous. No,l3992-B of 2009) had also been dismissed by this Court on 30-10-2009.
3. The petitioner has now approached this Court against the same relief mainly on the ground of delay in his trial. The report submitted by the learned trial Court on 19-11-2009 shows that the charge in this case had been framed on 5-9-2009 and ever since the evidence of the prosecution is being summoned but none of the prosecution witnesses has so far appeared before the learned trial Court so as to make a statement in support of the prosecution's case against the petitioner.
The report further shows that coercive measures are being adopted by the learned trial Court for procuring attendance of the prosecution witnesses but so far even those measures have failed to bear any fruit. The petitioner had been arrested in connection with this case way back on 26-12- 2007, i.e, more than two years ago and his trial has not made any progress so far. It is not disputed that the petitioner had not been nominated in the F.I.R, and a test identification parade had been held after about three months of the alleged occurrence. A mobile telephone set had allegedly been recovered from the petitioner's possession but the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General appearing for the State has confirmed the fact that no Memorandum of Identification is available on the record establishing that the recovered mobile telephone set . Was the same telephone set which had allegedly been snatched away by the petitioner.
3. In the peculiar circumstances of this case mentioned above I have found continued custody of the petitioner in jail without any progress in his trial to be unconscionable. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.