HIKMATULLAH vs The STATE and another
This criminal miscellaneous petition sought the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the trial court. The respondent, accused in a case under sections 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, had previously been denied bail by the High Court on merits, with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within five months. When the trial remained unconcluded within that timeframe, the trial court granted bail solely based on this delay. The core legal question was whether the failure of a trial court to conclude proceedings within a time-bound directive from the High Court constitutes a valid ground for bail when the accused's bail had previously been refused on merits. The High Court held that the trial court's order was illegal, ruling that non-compliance with a time-bound directive for trial completion is not a valid ground for bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, especially when prior bail refusal on merits has attained finality. Consequently, the High Court cancelled the bail and ordered the respondent to be taken into custody.
- Does the failure of a trial court to conclude a trial within a time-bound directive from the High Court constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
- Can an accused be granted bail on the sole ground of trial delay when a previous bail application was dismissed on merits?
- Is the non-compliance of a trial court with a High Court's directive to conclude a trial within a specified period a valid ground for bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
SHAKEEL AHMAD, J.---Through instant Cr. Misc./B.C.A. No, 46-B of 2017, the petitioner Hikmatullah seeks cancellation of bail granted to the accused/respondent Faiz Muhammad vide order dated 05.07.2017 by the learned trial Court/Sessions Judge, Lakki Marwat, in case FIR No,394 dated 17.10.2016 under sections 324/34, P.P.C., Police Station Peezu, Lakki Marwat.
2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by the complainant in the crime report are that the respondent is one of the nominated accused in the crime report with the allegation for attempting to commit Qatl-i-amd of the complainant by firing effectively and his brother ineffectively.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that in the earlier round of litigation bail of the accused Faiz Muhammad was declined vide order dated 15.12.2016 by this Court on merits, however, learned trial court was directed to accelerate the proceedings of the trial and conclude the same within a period of five months, failing which petitioner should be at liberty to approach the trial court for his release on bail. Learned A.A.G shall assure to submit challan within 15 days and the delay if caused by the petitioner and his counsel shall not be counted towards the said time limit. He next contented that complete challan was submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate Lakki Marwat on 14.01.2017. The case was received to the learned Sessions Judge from the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate Lakki Marwat on 14.01.2017. Formal charge was framed on 27.01.2017 and statement of five PWs were recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lakki Marwat till 10.06.2017, however the trial could not be concluded within a period of five months as directed by the by this Court, where after the accused filed an application for the grant of post arrest bail on the ground that order of the Honorable High Court dated 15.12.2016 was not complied with. They lastly argued that the learned trial Court while granting post arrest bail has exercised jurisdiction injudiciously and prayed for cancellation of bail.
4. As against that learned counsel representing the accused Faiz Muhammad argued that the learned trial court had failed to conclude the trial within a period of five months as directed by honorable High Court, therefore, accused was rightly released on bail.
5. Learned A.A.G appearing on behalf of the State supported the contention of learned counsel for the complainant and argued that mere non-compliance of the order of honorable High Court would not make the accused entitled for concession of bail, particularly when bail of the accused had already been refused on merits by this Court.
6. Arguments heard and record perused.
7. Perusal of the record reveals that first bail application moved by the respondent Faiz Mohammad before this Court in Cr. B.A. No,437-B/2016, which was dismissed on 05.07.2016. He was allowed bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 05.07.2017, merely on the ground that his trial could not be concluded within a period of five months as directed by this Court. Non- compliance of the directions issued to the trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously or within some specified period could not be considered as a valid ground for the grant of bail to an accused being alien to the provisions of section 497, Cr.P.C., particularly, when his bail petition has already been dismissed on merits by this Court, unless some fresh ground is shown by the accused/respondent for consideration of his request for the grant of bail, which is lacking in the present case. In this respect reference can well be made in case titled "Nasir Ahmad v. The State"
(PLD 2016 SC 11), wherein it was held that: "Neither non-compliance of directions issued to trial court to conclude trial expeditiously or within some specified time could be considered as valid ground for grant of bail to an accused, nor filing of direct complaint would have any bearing as regards earlier bail refusing orders, which had attained finality, unless some fresh ground could be shown."
8. The impugned order of learned trial Court dated 05.07.2017 does not fulfill condition incorporated in section 497, Cr.P.C., the same being illegal, therefore, by accepting this bail cancellation application, the bail granting order of the accused/respondent is recalled and the accused/respondent Faiz Muhammad is directed to be taken into custody to be treated as an under trial prisoner. The Additional Registrar of this court is directed to send the certified copy of this order to the learned Sessions Judge, Lakki Marwat for future guidance.