SHAMAN vs THE STATE
The applicant sought post-arrest bail in Crime No. 17 of 2004 registered at Police Station Mithiani under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the allegations and the status of the trial. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was nominated in the First Information Report with a specific role of being armed with a gun and directly firing at the deceased, resulting in instantaneous death. Furthermore, the Court noted that the delay in the trial was attributable to the applicant, who had previously absconded and been declared a proclaimed offender, and that the trial court was proceeding expeditiously. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the bail application and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within three months. The key principle laid down is that an accused who absconds and causes delays, and against whom there is a specific role attributed in a heinous crime with supporting prima facie material, is not entitled to post-arrest bail.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when specifically nominated in the FIR with a fatal role in a murder case?
- Does the conduct of an accused in absconding and being declared a proclaimed offender affect their right to bail?
- Whether bail should be refused when the trial court is proceeding expeditiously and delay is attributable to the accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' SYED SHAFQAT ALI SHAH MASOOMI, J.---The applicant is seeking bail in Crime No,17 of 2004 registered at Police Station, Mithiani for an offence under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C.
2. ' According to the F.I.R. Lodged by complainant Khadim Hussain Chandio 23-3-2004 at 1000 hours the facts are that the present applicant Shaman along with other accused duly armed with deadly weapons came at the house of complainant party and it is alleged that the present applicant made direct fire with his gun upon complainant party, which hit Rehmatullah, who died on the spot; hence F.I.R. Was lodged as stated above.
3. ' Heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.P.G. And also perused the material available on record. The learned A.P.G. Has vehemently opposed to the grant of bail.
4. In this case, the charge has beeri framed and delay caused is on the part of the applicant/accused as who remained absent and have been declared as proclaimed offender. The name of the applicant appears in the F.I.R. With specific role that he was armed with gun, directly fired at deceased Rehmatullah which hit him and he died on the spot due to gun shot fire. As the trial Court is proceeding with the case expeditiously as observed in the impugned order and there is no delay on the part of the prosecution side, therefore the applicant has not been able to make out a case for grant of bail.
5. ' For the foregoing reasons, I see no merits in this application and the same is dismissed.
6. ' The learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of three months without fail.
7. ' However, the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature for the purpose of only disposal of bail application and may not influence the mind of the trial court which is free to appraise the evidence strictly according to the merits of the case.