Sajjad Ahmad vs State and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial in a case registered under Sections 302/109/147/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay when the delay in concluding the trial was attributable to the conduct of the defence. The Lahore High Court held that an accused is not entitled to bail on statutory grounds as a matter of right if the delay in the trial is a result of the non-cooperation and deliberate dilatory tactics of the defence. The court laid down the principle that where adjournments are sought and effective hearings are postponed by the accused or his counsel, the resulting delay disentitles the accused from claiming the concession of bail on the statutory ground.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay when the delay in the conclusion of the trial is caused by the defence?
- Can a subsequent bail petition be maintained without any fresh grounds?
- Does seeking frequent adjournments by the accused disentitle them from claiming bail on statutory grounds?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner seeks post arrest bail on the ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial in case FIR No. 144/2018, dated 20.09.2018, under Sections 302/109/147/149, PPC, at Police Station Bhagat, District Mandi Bahauddin.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. This is 5th petition on the subject. Earlier the petitioner approached this Court through Cr1. Misc. No. 72172-B of 2019 for seeking the relief of post arrest bail on merits, which was withdrawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the case at full length on 03.02.2020. After dismissal of the above said petition, the petitioner again approached this Court on statutory delay through instant petition. From the interim order sheet placed on the record reveals that defence is responsible for delay in conclusion of trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Babar Hussain versus The State and others" (2016 SCMR 1538 ) observed as under: "We are of the considered view that even after lapse of two years, the conduct of an accused seeking adjournments can be taken note of and bail can be denied by a Court even on the statutory ground. We have noticed that adjournments were sought and even the cross-examination of the eye-witnesses was not conducted by the Petitioner's Counsel, for which no plausible explanation has been offered. In these specific circumstances, we do not find the Petitioner to be entitled to the concession of bail on statutory ground as a matter of right."
The delay in the trial is result of non-cooperation of the accused side and in such like situation, the petitioner shall not be entitled to get benefit on the ground of delay in trial. It appears that the petitioner has deliberately delayed the trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Abdur Rashid v. State" (PLJ 1998 SC 1241) observed as under: "Factually , if the witnesses are in attendance and the matter is ripe for recording evidence; but defence does not proceed with the case, it may seriously affect the prosecution because on the next date, possibly , for some or the other reason, witnesses who had in fact appeared may not attend. Therefore, if effective hearing is got postponed by the accused or his counsel then they are boun d to face entire risk and such period which may be consumed in procuring presence and examination of those witnesses who earlier appeared in the Court when adjournment was sought on behalf of accused would be important factor for considering question of bail merely on statutory around under third proviso to Section 497, Cr .P.C."
Even no fresh ground is mentioned in this petition as all the grounds agitated in this petition were available to the petitioner at the time of earlier bail application and this petition is agitated on the same grounds. When confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out that there is any fresh ground available for agitating the 5th petition. Keeping in view the dictum laid down in the judgme nts of August Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled "Amir Masih v. The State & another" (2013 SCMR 1524 ), Muhammad Siddiaue v. The State and another (2014 SCMR 304) and "Nazir Ahmed and another v. The State and others". (PLD 2014 SC 241).
4. For the foregoing reasons, circumstan ces, and judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, the petitioner has failed to make out a prima facie case for his enlargement on bail on the ground of statutory delay in conclusion of the trial. This bail petition, therefore, is found to be devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.