MUHAMMAD MANSHA Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Mansha, who was arrested on December 31, 1998, for the alleged possession of 720 grams of heroin, an offence under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The petitioner sought bail primarily on statutory grounds, arguing that he had been detained for over one year without the conclusion of his trial, and that the offence charged did not fall within the prohibitory clauses of the relevant law. The State opposed the application, contending that the submission of the challan precluded the grant of bail. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail under the statutory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as he had been detained for more than one year and the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the delay in trial was attributable to the petitioner's own conduct. The Court affirmed that the mere submission of a challan does not disentitle an accused to statutory bail when the requisite period of detention has elapsed.
- Does the mere submission of a challan to the court disentitle an accused to bail on statutory grounds?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if they have been detained for more than one year for an offence not falling within the prohibitory clauses of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the burden lie on the prosecution to prove that trial delay was occasioned by the accused's own act to defeat a claim for statutory bail?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner was arrested on 31‑12‑1998 in case F.I.R. No.676 of 1998 dated 31‑12‑1998 registered at Police Station, Saddar, Chichawatni under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition .(Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
2. According to the prosecution on a raid at Cichawatni Bypass Bus Stand he was found to be in possession of heroin weighing 720 grams.
3. His‑application for concession of bail was earlier rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni on 15‑5‑1999.
4. For the petitioner it is contended that he is entitled to bail on statutory ground for having been detained for more than, one year while the offence charged provides for a punishment of seven years only. In support of various other submissions including lack of independent recovery witness the payer is supported by re: Akhtar Hussain Shah v. State (1999 PCr.LJ 225). Also it is contended that the offence charged provides for a maximum punishment of seven years only and, therefore, does not fall within the prohibitory clauses.
5. Learned counsel for the State however, submits that the challan of the case having been submitted before the Court, no case for grant of the prayer is made out.
6. After considering the submissions for both sides, I find that the petitioner is entitled to concession of bail on statutory ground as provided in sub‑clause (a) of third proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. On the last date of hearing, the prosecution was asked to provide the record so that it could be seen if the delay , in trial of the accused was occasioned by his act or by the act of another person acting on his behalf. The record of the case has not been submitted. Admittedly, the petitioner was arrested more than one year back and it is not the case of the prosecution that the delay in conclusion of the, trial had resulted on account of any fault on his part. Mere fact that the challan has been submitted in the Court will not by itself disentitle the petitioner to concession of bail on statutory ground:
7. Accordingly, this, application is allowed. The petitioner shall be released subject to his furnishing of bond in the sum F of Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac) with one. surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
N:H.Q/M‑313,
Bail granted.