Zakir Jaffer and another vs The State through A.G. Islamabad and another
This matter arises from criminal petitions for post-arrest bail filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of a female accused to post-arrest bail under the statutory provisions governing criminal procedure and the right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court dismissed the first petition as not pressed upon the counsel's withdrawal. In respect of the second petition involving a female petitioner, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted post-arrest bail pursuant to the first proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting the absence of disentitling circumstances and observing that the High Court had failed to address the prosecution case and defense pleas. Additionally, the Court affirmed the accused's constitutional right to present a defense and have pleas decided in accordance with law under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The key principle laid down is that a female accused is ordinarily entitled to bail under the first proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. unless exceptional disentitling circumstances are established by the prosecution, while safeguarding the right to a fair trial.
- Whether a female accused is entitled to the concession of bail under the first proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of disentitling circumstances?
- Does an order directing the expeditious conclusion of a trial within a specified timeframe deprive an accused of the right to lead a defense under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 10A, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---Criminal Petition No.1109 of 2021: After arguing his case at length, learned counsel for the petitioner Zakir Jaf fer does not press this petition for bail after arrest. Dismissed as not pressed.
2. Criminal Petition NO. 1110 of 2021: We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner Asmat Zakir Jaffer in this petition for bail after arrest and noted that the learned High Court has in its impugned judgment dated 29.09.2021 failed to deal with the prosecution case against her and the pleas advanced by her counsel for grant of bail after arrest.
3. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the case, we consider that the petitioner being a woman may be granted bail under the first proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. in absence of any circumstances that may justify declining this relief to her . The prosecution has not been able to point out any such circumstance.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the time period of eight weeks specified in the paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment dated 23.09.2021 "to conclude the trial expeditiously prefera bly within eight weeks from the framing of charge" deprives the petitioner of a fair opportunity to lead his defence. We do not agree with that submission which is conjectural and without reference to facts. However , it goes without saying that the petitioners have a right of presenting their defence before the learned Trial Court and in this respect the learned Trial Court shall consider and decide their pleas in accordance with law as envisaged in Article 10A of the Constitution.
5. Accordingly without interfering with the directions given by the learned High Court in the impugned judgment dated 29.09.2021 and in the light of the observations made by us above, we convert this petition (Crl.P . No.1110 of 2021) into appeal and grant bail to the petitioner Asmat Zakir Jaffer subject to her name being retained on the ECL and her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rupees One Million with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court concerned. Needless to say that this concession of bail may be withdrawn if the petitioner misuses it in any manner , including causing delay in the expeditious conclusion of the trial or influencing the prosecution witnesses.
Cited by 2 cases
- Muhammad Latif alias Kala Versus State 2025 PCrLJ 1279
- Tahira Batool vs The State & another 2022 SCP 214, 2022 PLD Supreme Court 764