MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Muhammad Shahzad, who was charged under Section 392 and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a crime registered at Police Station Saudabad. The applicant sought bail, arguing that the stolen property recovered from him, a mobile phone, was his personal property; however, he failed to substantiate this claim with any evidence. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the applicant's involvement in multiple other criminal cases involving street crimes across various police stations in District East, Karachi. The Court observed that the applicant's history of repeated criminal involvement precluded the frequent extension of bail. Consequently, the applicant did not press the bail application, and it was dismissed. The Court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the case within three months, granting the applicant liberty to re-apply for bail if the trial court fails to comply with this timeline.
- Does the involvement of an accused in multiple other criminal cases justify the refusal of bail?
- Can a trial court be directed to expedite proceedings when a bail application is dismissed?
- Is an accused entitled to repeat a bail application if the trial court fails to conclude the trial within a specified timeframe?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MRS. QAISAR IQBAL, J.---The applicant has been connected in commission of the charged offence registered at P.S. Saudabad in Crime No,202/2007 under section 392, 34 P.P.C. Much of the emphasis has been laid that the applicant is entitled to the concession of bail as the stolen property recovered from his possession comprising of NOKIA Mobile phone was his personal property. When confronted with the position whether any evidence can be produced on behalf of the applicant that mobile recovered from his possession was his personal property, learned counsel for applicant was not in a position to substantiate the same.
2. ' However, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for State that the applicant is involved in innumerable cases pertaining to the street crime comprising of F.I.R. No,207/2007 registered at Police Station, Saudabad, F.I.R. No,148/2007 registered at Police Station, Landhi and F.I.R. No,120/2007 registered at Police Station, Baldia Town.
3. ' I am conscious of the fact that the applicant cannot be set free at this stage on account of his involvement in number of F.I.Rs, lodged at different police stations of District East Karachi and the concession of bail cannot be frequently extended on account of repetition of crimes by the applicant. When confronted with the above position learned counsel for applicant has sought direction to the effect that the learned trial Court be directed to expedite the matter within shortest possible time. On account of aggravated circumstances bail application being not pressed is hereby dismissed. The trial Court is directed to expedite the matter and disposed of the same within three months from the date of receipt of this order. In case of noncompliance applicant shall be at liberty to repeat the bail application which shall be decided by the trial Court on merits.
4. Orders accordingly.