SHAMAS-UD-DIN vs STATE, etc
This matter concerns a third petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Shamas-ud-Din, in a criminal case involving charges under Sections 324, 337F(v), 337F(iv), and 337F(iii)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of his trial, noting his continuous incarceration since April 2011 without the trial reaching a conclusion. The prosecution opposed the bail, arguing that delays were not attributable to the complainant and that the petitioner had previously sought adjournments. The Court observed that the petitioner had been incarcerated for over a year, even after excluding adjournments requested by the defense, and that no prosecution witnesses had been examined. Finding no evidence that the delay was attributable to the petitioner and noting his lack of a criminal record, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail under the 6th proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail.
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the trial is delayed without fault on their part?
- Does the exclusion of defense-requested adjournments still allow for bail based on statutory delay if the incarceration period exceeds one year?
- Can bail be granted under the 6th proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the delay in trial is not attributable to the accused?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this 3rd petition, petitioner Shamas-ud-Din seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 17 dated 1.03.2010 under Sections 324, 337F(v), 337F(iv) & 337F(iii)/34, PPC registered at Police Station Chikrala District Mianwali. His 1st bail application i,e, Crl. Misc. No, 7752-B of 2011 was dismissed having been withdrawn whereas his 2nd bail petition i,e, Crl.Misc.No, 14549-B of 2012 was dismissed on merits on 21.11.2011.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he urges only the statutory ground of delay in the trial of the petitioner; that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 05.04.2011 and he is continuously behind the bars since then but his trial has yet not been concluded without any fault on his part or any other person acting on his behalf. Further contends that if the adjournments sought on behalf of the petitioner are excluded from the consideration even then the period of his incarceration exceeds one year and that the petitioner has no -previous criminal record.
3. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant while opposing this bail application contends that the prosecution witnesses have regularly been appearing before the learned trial Court, however, for the reasons beyond the control of the prosecution, evidence could not be recorded, therefore, delay in conclusion of trial cannot be attributed to the complainant; that on some of the dates of hearing, witnesses were present but adjournments were sought on behalf of the petitioner, hence, he is not entitled for bail even on the ground of statutory delay in his trial.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 05.04.2011 and since then he is continuously behind the bars without any substantive progress in his trial. Even not a single prosecution witness has so far been recorded. The certified copy of the order sheet of the learned trial Court produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, reflects that only three adjournments were sought on behalf of the petitioner and if the said period is excluded from the consideration even then his incarceration period exceeds one year. There is nothing on record to suggest that case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of 7th proviso to Section 497, Cr.P.C. Learned law officer after consulting the record confirms that the petitioner has no previous criminal record. As the delay in conclusion of the trial of the petitioner cannot be attributed to him or any other person acting on his behalf in any manner whatsoever, therefore, without commenting upon the merits the case, keeping in view the 6th proviso to Section 497, Cr.P.C., I admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.