GUL QIAS Versus SAEED KHAN
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two applicants, Shahzad Ahmed and Saeed Ahmed, who were detained in connection with F.I.R. No. 111 of 1999 registered under sections 392, 324, 353, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given that the police had failed to submit a final challan (report) to the court for approximately eleven months following their arrest. The court observed that the Investigating Officer is legally obligated to submit a report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 within seventeen days, a requirement that was neglected in this instance. The State failed to provide any justification for this delay. Consequently, the court held that the prolonged detention without the submission of a challan entitled the applicants to bail. The key principle laid down is that the failure of the prosecution to submit a challan within the statutory period, without valid explanation, constitutes a significant ground for the grant of bail to an accused person.
- Does the failure of the police to submit a challan within the statutory period entitle an accused to bail?
- Is the Investigating Officer legally bound to submit a report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 within seventeen days?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. The applicants Shahzad Ahmed and Saeed Ahmed seek bail in F.I.R. No.1ll of 1999 of Police Station North Nazimabad registered for offence under section 392/324/353/34, P.P.C. The applicants' bail plea was earlier rejected by Illrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi Central on 30‑10‑1999, hence this present bail application. The learned counsel for the applicants at the very outset submitted that the applicants were arrested by the police on 16‑4‑1999 and up to this time interim or final challan is not submitted in any Court of law and as such the detention of the applicant/accused is illegal and amounts to wrongful confinement. The learned counsel further stated that on 30‑12‑1999 the Investigating Officer was present in Court and has submitted that he would submit the challan but in spite of that no challan has been submitted though more than two months have passed. The learned counsel for the applicants has argued that there was absolutely no evidence with the police and that is why the police has no submitted challan against the accused. He has further argued that the applicants were arrested and 13‑D cases were separately registered against them and both applicants are granted bail offence under section 13‑D by the trial Court.
2. Learned counsel has further argued that whatever the allegations be against the applicants but that cannot be detained in custody for such a long time without submitting the challan. He has lastly argued that by today the applicants have almost completed 11 months in jail.
3. Mr. Dilawar Hussain, Advocate appearing for the State is not able to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants except that the present applicants were arrested by the police at the spot.
4. I have considered the arguments made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The learned counsel appearing for the State has not A been able 'to give any explanation that why the case has not been challaned though under the law Investigating Officer is bound to submit report under section 173, Cr.P.C. within seventeen days. Admittedly this bail application was tiled on 11‑11‑1999 and copy was received by A.G. Office even then the State Counsel has not bothered to make enquiry from the police as to why the' challan has not been submitted.
5. In view of the above circumstances I am of the view that the applicants are entitled to the grant of bail and they are accordingly granted bail in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 each and P.R. bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
6. N.H.Q./S-63/K Bail allowed.