MUHAMMAD ZEESHAN vs STATE and another
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 104/2010 registered under Sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Karor Pacca, District Lodhran. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on statutory grounds due to the delay in the conclusion of the trial. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail on statutory grounds as he has been detained for over a year without conclusion of the trial, is not a previous convict, has no other pending cases, and the delay is not attributable to him. The key principle laid down is that an accused person is generally entitled to statutory bail when the trial is unduly delayed, provided the delay is not occasioned by the accused and they do not fall within the exceptions of being a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on statutory grounds when the trial is not concluded within one year?
- Does delay in the conclusion of the trial not attributed to the petitioner furnish a ground for bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
- Whether a previous non-convict with no other pending criminal cases is entitled to bail when not considered a hardened or dangerous criminal?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition filed under Section 497 Cr.P.0 the petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 104/2010 dated 16.03.2010 for offences under Sections 392/411 PPC registered at Police Station City Karor Pacca District Lodhran.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks post arrest bail on statutory grounds and submits that the petitioner was arrested on 31.03.2010. More than one year has lapsed without conclusion of the trial. The petitioner is not a previous convict. No case is pending against him in any Anti- Terrorism Court. The delay in conclusion of trial cannot be attributed to the petitioner.
3. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General as well as the learned counsel for Respondent No, 2 have opposed this petition and submitted that the petitioner earlier applied for bail and the same was declined by this Court on 19.10.2010 while disposing of. Criminal Miscellaneous No, 3790-B-2010. The challan has been submitted before the trial Court and there is every likelihood that the trial would be concluded in the near future. Hence there are no good grounds for allowing bail to the petitioner.
4. In normal course of events the petitioner would be entitled to grant of bail on the ground that he is languishing in Jail since 31.03.2010. More than one year has gone by but the trial has not been concluded till date. There is nothing on the record to show, that the petitioner is a previous convict.
No case is pending against the petitioner before any Anti-Terrorism Court. The delay in conclusion of trial has primarily not been occasioned by any act of the petitioner or any one acting on his behalf. On a tentative assessm ent which is to be made at this stage this Court is not of the opinion that the petitioner is a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he has threatened the prosecution witnesses or the complainant with dire consequences after the commission of offence. The petitioner is a previous non-convict and no other criminal cases are pending against him. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail on statutory grounds.
5. For what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.