SARFRAZ Versus THE STATE
This is a second post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, seeking release in a criminal case where he has been incarcerated for sixteen months. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the grounds of statutory delay in the commencement and conclusion of the trial, particularly when he is not responsible for the delay and the co-accused has already been granted bail. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, noting that he has remained in custody for sixteen months without the trial having commenced. The Court emphasized that the petitioner cannot be held liable for delays caused by the actions of co-accused persons or absconders. The key principle laid down is that every accused person has a fundamental right to a speedy trial, and prolonged incarceration without the commencement of trial, where the accused is not responsible for the delay, constitutes sufficient grounds for the grant of bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, specifically regarding cases of further inquiry.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the trial has not commenced after sixteen months of incarceration?
- Can an accused be held responsible for trial delays caused by the actions of co-accused or absconders?
- Does the absence of an allegation of Zina against the petitioner in a criminal case support a claim for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
This is second bail petition on behalf of the petitioner. His earlier Bail Petition No.7719/B of 2000 was dismissed by this Court on 23-2-2001
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was arrested in this case on 18-10-2000, he is behind the bars for the last 16 months, that trial has not been commenced so far, that co-accused Mst. Nasreen Bibi was allowed bail by this Court when application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court, that in fact Mst. Nasreen was married with Shahbaz real brother of the present petitioner, that there is no allegation of Zina against the present petitioner and his case is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner is named in the F.I.R., that as far as 3rd proviso of section 497 (1), Cr.P.C. is concerned, that has been deleted through notification issued by the Federal Government in October, 2001, that a direction may be given to the learned trial Court to expedite the trial as early as possible, that delay in conclusion of the trial has been caused due to the reasons that some accused were absconder and for that reasons supplementary challan was submitted in the trial Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. This bail petition was fixed for hearing before me yesterday, I have summoned the report from the learned trial Court through D.R. (Judl) of this Court and the same has been received. In the instant case, petitioner was arrested on 18-10-2000, there was no allegation of Zina against him, he was not responsible for the delay in conclusion of the trial, by the act of his co accused he cannot be burdened with any liability, he is behind the bars for the 16 months, every accused is entitled to speedy trial, I do not know that how much time in conclusion of the trial would take place, therefore, this petition is accepted. Petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like-amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
N.H.Q./S-779/L Bail granted.