Irfan Masih vs The State and others
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the death of his wife due to burn injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the statutory delay in the conclusion of his trial under section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Upon reviewing the trial record, the Court observed that the petitioner had been incarcerated since 2014, and despite his indictment in 2014, no prosecution witnesses had been examined in over five years. The Court found that the delay was primarily attributable to the prosecution and the trial court, rather than the accused. Holding that an inordinate and shocking delay in trial proceedings violates the right to a speedy trial and entitles an accused to bail, the Court granted the petition. The key principle established is that where a case for statutory delay is made out, bail should not be refused on hyper-technical grounds, as unnecessary delay constitutes a denial of justice.
- Does an inordinate delay in the conclusion of a trial entitle an accused to post-arrest bail under section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be refused on hyper-technical grounds when a case for statutory delay in trial conclusion is established?
- Is the right to a speedy trial a valid ground for granting bail in cases of prolonged incarceration without trial progress?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MUHAMMAD WAHEED KHAN, J.---Petitioner having failed to get post arrest bail in case FIR No.176/2014 dated 28.06.2014 registered under sections 302/109 P.P.C. at Police Station City Phool Nagar , District Kasur from the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pattoki vide order dated 27.10.201'7, has prayed the same relief through the instant petition.
2. Precisely , the case of the petitioner as spelt out from the contents of the FIR is that the petitioner on 27.06.2014 threw petrol and set fire on his wife Shazia Bibi, who later on succumbed to the injuries, hence, this case.
3. Pro and contra arguments have been heard. Record perused.
4. The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has right to be admitted to post arrested bail on the statutory delay in conclusion of trial under clause (b) of 3rd proviso of section 497(1) Cr.P.C.
Record shows that the petitioner had been arrested in this case on 29.06.2014 and since then he is behind the bars. During the pendency of this petition, a report from the learned trial Court regarding the progress in trial has been requisitioned, on perusal of the same, it transpires that the petitioner had been indicted in the instant case on 18.11.2014, thereafter , the same was amended on 10.04.2018 but since then there is no progress in the trial.
Learned trial Court has categorically state d in the said report that major responsibility for the delay in trial is on the complainant party , who is not cooperating with the Court, to produce evidence, although during this period the accused had also procured five adjournments. So under the circumstances, I find that the delay in conclusion of trial has mainly been caused by the prosecution or Court itself. Even if, the adjournments sought by the accused were excluded, his total detention during the trial is more than 2 years. Despite lapse of about 5-1/2, years since his indictment, not a single witness had been recorded during the trial. Even otherwise, speedy trial is a right of every accused, therefore, unnecessary delay in conclusion of trial in such like cases would amount to denial of Justice.
5. It has been consistently held by the superior Courts of the country that if a case, on such statutory delay in conclusion of trial, is made out then ordinarily bail should not be refused on hyper technical grounds. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the ratio decidendi laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of "Adnan Prince v. The State and others "(PLD 2018 SC 147). Under the circumstances, I find that inordinate and shocking delay in conclusion of trial has made out the case of present petitioner for grant of post arrest bail, which cannot be refused on any ground much less justifiable.
6. In the light of above discussion, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. Before parting with this order , I observe that since an inordinate and unexplained delay has been occasioned to conclude the trial, hence, the learned trial Court seized with the matter is directed to conclude the same expeditiously , preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order .
Cited by 1 case
- Irshad Ahmed vs The State 2023 MLD 390