Muhammad Irfan Shabbir vs The State through P.G. Punjab and another
This criminal petition arises from an order of the Lahore High Court refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question addressed is whether the accused is entitled to bail on the statutory ground of delayed conclusion of trial where he has already undergone a significant period of incarceration and the delay is not attributable to him. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed bail to the appellant, noting that he had been behind bars for over one year and four months for an offense carrying a maximum punishment of three years, while the trial remained unconcluded due to absences of witnesses and the complainant. The Court laid down the principle that prolonged incarceration without material progress in the trial, absent any contributory delay by the accused, justifies the grant of post-arrest bail under statutory considerations.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on statutory grounds when the trial has not concluded and he has undergone a substantial period of incarceration for an offense punishable with three years imprisonment?
- Can bail be granted where the delay in the trial is attributable to the absence of the complainant and witnesses rather than the conduct of the accused?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.---Petitioner-Muhammad Irfan Shabbir has impugned the order dated 14.09.2021 whereby bail was refused to him by the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore in case FIR No.51 1 dated 15.05.2014, offence under section 489-F , P.P.C., registered at Police Station South Cantt., District Lahore.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and perusal of available record, it has been observed by us that this petition has been filed mainly on the statutory ground as according to learned counsel the petitioner was arrested in this case on 30.06.2020 and till date no evidence has been record ed by the learned trial Court. As earlier the main file was missing and subsequently the complainant side filed an application in the trial Court for secondary evidence which was now allow ed. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last about one year and four months and his case has not been decided. Order Sheet appended indicates that on many dates the complainant was absent and the witnesses did not appear and even witnesses were summoned through bailable warrants. Be that as it may, the offence alleged against the A petitioner is punishable for three years out of which the petitioner has already incarcerated for one year and four months.
3. For the foregoing, the instant criminal petition is converted into an appeal and the same is hereby allowed. The appellant Muhammad Irfan Shabbir is allowed bail (in the instant FIR) subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.600,000/- (Rupees six hundred thousand) with two surety in the like amount to the 'satisfaction of the learned trial court.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant contends that as application for secondary evidence has been allowed by the trial Court and they want to produc e their evidence, learned trial Court be directed to conclude the trial expeditiously . As charge has been framed, we expect from the learned trial Court to conclude the trial within four months after receipt of this order . If, any hurdle, caused by the petitioner in early conclusion of the trial, the complainant is at liberty to file an application under section 497(5) Code of Criminal Procedure.