SHAH MURAD vs KHAIR MUHAMMAD and another
This criminal matter arises from an application filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the trial court in a murder case registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the respondent's bail, granted by the trial court on grounds of hardship due to prolonged incarceration, warranted cancellation, particularly given that a co-accused had previously been refused bail and the respondent had allegedly absconded for a period. Upon review, the High Court held that the trial court's order was neither illegal nor perverse. The Court observed that the respondent had been in custody for over four and a half years with minimal progress in the trial, justifying the grant of bail on the basis of hardship rather than merits. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application, establishing the principle that bail granted on the ground of statutory hardship due to inordinate delay in trial proceedings is distinct from bail on merits and does not automatically warrant cancellation based on the denial of bail to co-accused.
- Can bail granted on the ground of hardship due to prolonged incarceration be cancelled solely because a co-accused was previously denied bail?
- Does a trial court's grant of bail based on the duration of custody constitute an illegality or perversity warranting interference by the High Court?
- Is the principle of consistency in bail matters applicable when the grounds for granting bail are based on hardship rather than the merits of the case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---Through this application, applicant Shah Murad Brohi seeks cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No,1, namely Khair Muhammad by the learned trial Court that is to say the Court of Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana vide order dated 3-12-2008 in F.I.R. No,32/2003 of Police Station Hyderi for offences under sections 302, 34, P.P.C.
2. Learned Advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that co-accused Jameel Ahmed was refused bail by this Court vide order dated 14-6-2006, therefore, the applicant was not entitled to be enlarged on bail by the learned trial Court and that the applicant' remained absconder for about one and half year. He therefore, prays for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No, 1.
3. Learned State Counsel opposes this application.
4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed before Court. I find that the respondent No,1 was arrested on 22-5-2004 and then amended charge was framed on 24-2-2005, Tapedar was examined on 12-2-2006 and then only complainant namely Shah Murad Brohi was examined on 16-3-2006 and thereafter there was no progress of trial and consequently the bail was granted to the respondent No,1 by the learned trial Court vide order dated 3-12-2008 only on the ground of hardship for his remaining in custody continuously for a period of more than four and half year and not on merits.
Thus the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant/ complainant carry no weight. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 3-12-208, whereby bail was granted to respondent No, 1.
' In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the opinion that the applicant/complainant Shah Murad has failed to make out the case for cancellation of bail, granted to the respondent No,1,