Abdul Majeed @ Lateef vs The State, Etc.
The petitioner, Abdul Majeed alias Latif, sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 546 registered under Sections 458 and 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Rahim Yar Khan, involving allegations of house trespass, robbery, and firing at eyewitnesses during which the accused was apprehended at the spot. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of a protracted trial without progress since his arrest and injuries sustained at the time of apprehension. The court considered the arguments regarding the heinous nature of the offense and the direct role attributed to the petitioner. Due to the incomplete text of the judgment, the final holding is not fully disclosed, but the court noted that a fair and speedy trial is the right of every accused.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of a protracted trial without progress?
- Does an accused apprehended at the spot with looted property and injuries merit the concession of bail in heinous offenses under Sections 458 and 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. - Abdul Majeed alias Latif son of Muhammad Hussain, petitioner, seeks post- arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 546, dated 02.11.2011 registered against him under Sections 458/394, P.P.C, at Police Station Saddar Rahim Yar Khan with the allegation that four unknown persons entered into the house of the complainant and forcibly taken away amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the iron box who on chasing by eye-witnesses although started firing one pallet of which hit Waheed Ahmed on his forehead yet was caught at the spot. He disclosed his name Abdul Majeed.
2. : Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is facing the agony of protracted trial without any progress of trial ever since his arrest i.e. 02.11.2011; that charge has been framed on 28.05.2012 but uptill now no prosecution witness is recorded; that the petitioner was apprehended and produced to the police alongwith Rs. 20,000/- after giving him beating which caused serious injuries upon his person and his medico-legal report dated 02.11.2011 is evident on this fact, hence the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
3. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that in such a heinous offence the petitioner does not deserve for any leniency; that the petitioner has been attributed direct role causing injury to the injured eyewitness, hence the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel, for the parties and have gone through the record.
5. A fair and speedy trial is a right of every accused. The story narrated In the F.I.R, appears to be not {{PART MISS}}