MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs The STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Yaqoob, in a case involving the abduction, rape, and murder of a minor child, registered under Section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail after arrest, given the incriminating evidence and the argument regarding statutory delay in the trial's conclusion. The Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it. It observed that the petitioner was named in the FIR, his disclosure led to the recovery of the victim's body, and the victim's belongings were recovered from him. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Regarding the delay, the Court found that the delay was not attributable to the prosecution and that the petitioner, as a single accused in a heinous crime, could not claim the benefit of statutory delay. The Court established that where prima facie incriminating evidence exists, bail should not be granted, especially when the trial is actively progressing.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when prima facie incriminating evidence exists and the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused claim the benefit of statutory delay in the conclusion of a trial if the delay is not attributable to the prosecution?
- Does the recovery of a victim's body based on the disclosure of the accused constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 364-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Yaqoob petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No, 270/13, dated 03.08.2013 registered at Police Station Ferozewala, District Gujranwala in respect of an offence under section 364-A, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record with their able assistance it has been noticed by this Court that this is bail after arrest and only tentative assessm ent is required at this stage. The petitioner is named in the FIR and specific role of abducting and committing rape and thereafter causing death of deceased Mst. Laraib Bibi, aged about 10/11 years is leveled against him. It was none else but the petitioner on whose disclosure the deadbody of the deceased was recovered. During the investigation of this case Dopatta of the deceased Mst. Laraib Bibi has been recovered from the petitioner. All the prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, still stand by their statements pointing accusing fingers towards the petitioner as the culprit who has perpetrated the offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner remained unable to point out any previous animosity between the complainant and the petitioner vis-a-vis the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the latter in a case of this nature. During the investigation of this case the petitioner has been found guilty of the offence and his name has been placed in column No, 3 of report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Charge in this case has already been framed and according to learned counsel for the petitioner four prosecution witnesses have already been examined by the learned trial court which fact shows that the trial of the petitioner is in progress. I may observe here that in cases where the prosecution evidence is being recorded the Courts are very slow to grant bail to accused persons unless and until a strong case for bail is made out in their favour but in this case prima facie there is enough evidence against the petitioner which disentitled him for post-bail on merits. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the case reported as PLD 2003 SC 525. The offence with which the petitioner is charged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. Apart from merits of the case learned counsel for the petitioner has also sought bail on statutory delay in conclusion of petitioner's trial because the petitioner was arrested in connection with this case on 03.08.2013. In this context I have carefully gone through the impugned bail refusing order wherein it has categorically been mentioned that the delay in conclusion of trial is not on the part of the prosecution rather the complainant was present along with his witnesses on almost all dates of hearing. Even otherwise the petitioner is the single accused involved in the rape and murder of a 10/11 years old child, therefore, the act of the petition brought him under the category of dangerous and desperate criminal. So in the backdrop of such a scenario the ground of statutory delay in conclusion of trial is not available to the petitioner.
3. For what has been discussed above, prima facie sufficient incriminating material is available against the petitioner connecting him with the commission of offences and this petition being devoid of any merit is, therefore, dismissed. However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.
4. Before parting with this order, it is, however, clarified that the observations made herein above are just tentative in nature and the same shall not prejudice the learned trial court in any manner whatsoever at the time of trial.