MUHAMMAD WASEEM alias VICKY vs The STATE and others
This matter concerns a second post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Waseem, in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial. Upon reviewing the trial court's record, the Court observed that the petitioner had been incarcerated for nearly four years and ten months without a single prosecution witness being examined. The record indicated that the prosecution was responsible for numerous adjournments, and the delay was not attributable to the petitioner. The Court held that the gravity of the allegations must yield to the consideration of individual liberty when the prosecution fails to proceed with the trial for an extended period. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the right to a speedy trial cannot be denied, particularly when the accused is not a hardened criminal and the delay is not caused by the defense.
- Can an accused be granted bail on the ground of statutory delay if the prosecution fails to produce witnesses for an extended period?
- Does the gravity of an offense justify denying bail when the trial has not commenced after nearly five years of detention?
- Is a bail petition maintainable on the ground of statutory delay if the delay in trial is not attributable to the accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
MISS AALIA NEELUM, J.---The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No.566-2013, dated 20.10.2013, under Sections 302/324/148/ 149/109, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Badami Bagh, Lahore.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. I have noticed that this is 2nd post arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, whereas first on statutory delay in trial. Earlier bail application bearing Crl. Misc.No.1276-B of 2017 was dismissed on 05.06.2017. Thereafter petitioner filed instant bail petition of statutory delay in conclusion of trial.
Undeniably the petitioner is named in the FIR with the allegation of collective firing along with his co-accused resulted into murder of the real brother and Bhabi of the complainant whereas two persons were injured. But fact remains that the petitioner was arrested on 20.01.2014. First of all, I examined the record of the case and report requisitioned from the trial court to find out whether the delay in trial is substantially or materially attributable to the petitioner himself. For this purpose, I have perused the report and copies of order-sheets of the criminal proceeding. Charge was framed by the learned trial Court on 21.10.2014. After that the case was first fixed for recording evidence and prosecution evidence was summoned. Since then, till date, no prosecution witness has been examined. From the report on most of the dates, prosecution did not pursue the case and seventy (70) adjournments were provided to the prosecution for production of evidence but the prosecution failed to produce evidence. The adjournments sought by the prosecution are more than adjournments sought by the defence. Except this, there is nothing in the order sheets, which reflects that the evidence could not be recorded because of the reason attributable to the petitioner. The gravity of allegation, at one stage, has to yield to consideration of individual liberty and cannot be allowed to deny bail to an accused even in a case where despite he having completed almost 4 years and ten months in Jail, not a single prosecution witness is examined.
Period of 4 years and ten months is quite a long period of an individual detention during trial. It becomes a matter of more concern when the Court finds that the prosecution has not been able to take off despite lapse of such a long time inasmuch as not a single witness has been examined.
There is nothing on the record to show that either the petitioner is previously convict or a hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal.
4. For what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with the surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.