Shahzad Ahmad vs The State And Another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Shahzad Ahmad, who was charged under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in relation to a firearm incident. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the injuries inflicted and the duration of his pre-trial detention. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The court reasoned that the injuries were inflicted on the legs, a non-vital part of the body, and there was no evidence of repeated firing, rendering the petitioner's liability open to further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the petitioner had been incarcerated for over two years and four months without the conclusion of his trial, violating his right to a speedy trial. The court established the principle that prolonged pre-trial detention, in the absence of a concluded trial, constitutes sufficient grounds for the grant of bail, particularly when the accused is a previous non-convict.
- Does the infliction of injuries on non-vital parts of the body, without repetition of fire, constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can prolonged pre-trial detention without the conclusion of a trial justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is the right to a speedy trial a valid consideration for the grant of bail in criminal cases?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J. - Petitioner Shahzad Ahmad through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 574 registered under Section 324/34, P.P.C. With Police Station Mustafabad, District Kasur on 23.11.2008.
2. Briefly the prosecution case per the F.I.R. Is that on 23.11.2008 at about 7.45 a.m he on the lalkara of accused Karam Din with 12-bore gun had fired at Abdul Jabbar, the nephew of the complainant, hitting on his legs.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that though he has been ascribed gun fire to the said injured but those injuries were on the legs. The same is the non-vital part of the body.
4. On the bare perusal of the narration of the F.I.R., it does not appear that there was any repetition of fire by him. In such circumstances of the case, the question that if he ultimately would be held, liable for the offence. Hence, from such an angle, his case is open to further inquiry into his guilt and so, is covered under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. He is stated to be behind the bars since 11.12.2008. This period, if calculated, comes to almost two years and four months. This is a sufficient long period of detention. There is, while, no cavil to the proposition that speedy trial is right of an accused. The same cannot be denied to him except any just or due cause. He is also stated to be a previous non-convict.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2/complainant has submitted that his trial has commenced and in the same two PWs have been left to be examined.
7. I have found from the order dated 24.12.2010, recorded by Ms. Jazeela Aslam, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur that she has given direction to the learned Trial Court to conclude his trial within six months. Although two months are still there in the expiry of such direction period, but still, I find that he has sufficiently suffered detention without conclusion of his trial.
8. In these circumstances of the case, I find that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out.
9. I, therefore, accept this petition and allow him bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.
1,0, 000/- (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.