MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Akram, who is accused in a cross-version case registered under FIR No. 09/2013 at Police Station City Lodhran. The petitioner faced allegations of inflicting 'Sarya' blows on the complainant's head and chest. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the principle of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial. Upon reviewing the record and a report from the trial court, the High Court observed that the petitioner had been incarcerated since March 2013, yet the trial had not progressed significantly, with the charge not even framed by July 2014. The trial court estimated a further five months for completion. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner had established a valid ground for bail due to the inordinate and statutory delay in the disposal of the case. The petition was accepted, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental consideration in bail adjudication.
- Can an accused be granted post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial?
- Does the failure to frame a charge within a reasonable period constitute a valid ground for bail?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Muhammad Akram son of Muhammad Amin petitioner seeks post arrest bail in cross-version of case FIR No, 09/2013 dated 03.01.2013 u/S. 337-A(i)(ii)(iii)/337-F(i),(v)(vi)/ 337-L(2)/148/149, PPC registered at P.S. City Lodhran.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioner as unfolded in the cross-version is that he inflicted 'Sarya' blows on the person of Abid which landed on his head and chest.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. It has been noticed that the petitioner in the present case was arrested on 13.03.2013 and since then he is continuously behind the bars without, any substantial progress in the trial. A report in this regard was sought for about the present status of the trial and the time required in conclusion of the same from the learned trial Court. According to the report submitted by the learned trial Court vide Diary No, 6481 dated 07.07.2014 the charge against the petitioner was to be framed on 17.07.2014 whereas in the main FIR case same is the position. Further perusal of the report of learned trial Court reveals that the learned trial Court has sought five (05) months time for the conclusion of the trial beside the fact that the charge has not been framed. Even otherwise prior to the date of framing of the charge, the petitioner has earned the ground of statutory delay in disposal of the case.
5. In view of the above without commenting upon the merits of the case the instant petition is accepted on the ground of statutory delay and the petitioner Muhammad Akram is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- (one labs rupees) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
Bail accepted.