MUHAMMAD HANIFL vs The STATE and another
This criminal petition arises out of an application seeking post-arrest bail on statutory grounds in a case registered under sections 302, 460, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura. The petitioner contended that he had been incarcerated for over three years without the conclusion of the trial through no fault of his own. The State and the complainant opposed the bail, arguing that the delay was attributable to the petitioner and his co-accused through adjournments and non-availability of defence counsel, and further highlighted that the petitioner fell within the restrictive 5th proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as a dangerous criminal involved in Qatl-e-Amd during a dacoity. The Lahore High Court held that the delay in the trial was caused by the defence rather than the prosecution, and that accused persons committing murder during dacoity are not entitled to statutory bail under the 5th proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on statutory grounds when the delay in conclusion of the trial is attributable to the defence rather than the prosecution?
- Does an accused involved in causing murder during the commission of a dacoity fall within the restrictive provisions of the 5th proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail on statutory delay be granted when the trial is near its conclusion and a substantial number of prosecution witnesses have already been examined?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 460, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.---The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,737 of 2008 dated 8- 8-2008 under sections 302/460/324/148/149, P.P.C. Police Station Ferozewala District Sheikhupura.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution version as set forth in the F.I.R. Recorded on the application of Nazeer Ahmad complainant is that at 2-30 a.m. On 8-8-2008 10 unknown persons made trespass into his house and on alarm raised by the inmates opened firing resulting into injuries to Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Ishrat, out of whom Muhammad Akbar died in the hospital.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner seeks bail only on statutory ground as he is behind the bars for a period more than three years and the trial has yet not reached its logical end without any fault on his part.
4. The learned D.P.G. And the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the petition.. It is contended that the witnesses have been appearing in the court but they could not be examined/cross-examined due to non-availability of the learned defence counsel or other delaying tactics adopted' by the petitioner and his co-accused persons.
5. Criminal Miscellaneous No,13625/B of 2010 moved by the petitioner has already been dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 17-1-2011. The copy of order sheet clearly reveals that the witnesses have been appearing in the court on different dates of hearing but they could not be examined/cross-examined due to non-availability of the learned defence counsel or adjournments sought by the accused for different reasons. In these circumstances, the prosecution cannot be held responsible for non-conclusion of the trial. Moreover, the petitioner and his co-accused persons caused Qatl-e-Amd of an innocent person and injuries to other during the commission of dacoity. He is a dangerous criminal within the meanings of the 5th proviso of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. As amended through Act No,VIII of 2011. Such elements who have no respect for life and property of others and cause Qatal of innocent persons during dacoities or robberies are not entitled to any relief even on statutory ground. Moreover, evidence of eleven witnesses has already been recorded and the conclusion of trial in near future is possible so no ground to extend the concession of bail at this stage is available. In this respect reliance is placed on 2011 SCM R 1332.
The petition is without merits. The same is hereby dismissed.