GODHO alias MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs THE STATE
This matter is a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of Crime No. 91 of 2004 registered at Police Station Ghouspur for offences under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether an accused who previously jumped bail during trial due to community enmity, but was subsequently re-arrested and has remained in detention for a significant period while continuing to attend proceedings, is entitled to the concession of bail. The Sindh High Court held that since the period of absconsion was limited to about five months, the total detention period exceeded one year, and the prosecution showed no adverse conduct regarding the trial's progression, the applicant was entitled to bail. The court laid down the principle that prolonged detention coupled with a reasonable period of past absconsion and regular attendance before the trial court can justify the re-grant of bail, subject to enhanced surety.
- Whether an accused who has jumped bail during trial is entitled to the grant of bail upon subsequent arrest and detention?
- Does a period of absconsion lasting approximately five months disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail when the subsequent detention exceeds one year?
- Can bail be granted to an accused facing trial under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 after the resumption of custody?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' RIAZAT ALI SAHAR, J.---This is a bail application under section 497, Cr.P.C. Moved by applicant Godho alias Muhammad Siddique son of Bilawal Nindwani, in Crime No,91 of 2004 of Police Station Ghouspur, for offence punishable under sections 302, 34, P.P.C.
2. ' It is, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the accused was bailed out by this court on 7-8-2006 on the basis ot rule consistency. Perusal of case diary dated 26-1-2011 of the trial Court shows the presence of the applicant, as he is continuously attending the court. Diary dated 29-1-2011 shows his absence and admittedly he has jumped the bail during the trial due to fear of enmity of his community. The diary dated 23-6-2011 of the trial Court reveals that complainant informed that applicant is in judicial lockup, Kandhkot in some other crime. The counsel for the applicant pointed out that he was arrested in Crime No,27 of 2011 of Police Station Karampur, for offence punishable under sections 302, 337-H(2), 148, 149, P.P.C. On 3-6-2011, whereby he was bailed out vide order dated 15-10-2001. Certified true copy of the order is available on the record. He further contended that since 3-6-2011 till today he is behind the bar. His period of absconsion is not more than 5 months, so far his detention upon his arrest is more than one year, which is sufficient punishment for him in order to jump the bail during trial. He relied upon the case of Zaheer Ahmed v. The State, 1983 PCr.LJ 2600; Malik Pahar Khan and another v. The State 2012 YLR 43 (Karachi) and Dosoo v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 933 (Karachi).
3. ' Learned State Counsel has no objection for grant of bail to the applicant.
4. I am of the considered view that in fact the accused has jumped the bail during trial for about 5 months and lateron he was arrested in some other crime and continuously attending the trial Court and facing the trial. He was already bailed out by this court. His detention period is more than one year, which is sufficient, nothing adverse against him has been placed by the prosecution in respect of conduct of the accused, therefore, I am of the opinion that applicant is entitled for grant of bail. The application is allowed by enhancing the surety amount and the applicant is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,400,000 (four hundred thousand) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial -Court. Meanwhile, the learned trial Court is strictly directed to conclude the case being old one within 3 months under the intimation of this court.
Cited by 2 cases
- Muhsin Islam & salih Islam vs the State & others 2017 PHC 567
- MUHSIN ISLAM and another vs The STATE and 2 others 2018 MLD 428