TAHIR Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, filed by an accused charged under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the complainant's son. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the allegations of accidental firing during a marriage ceremony, the significant delay in registering the F.I.R., and the protracted nature of the trial. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the possibility of an accidental incident could not be ruled out, particularly given the initial report in the daily Roznamcha and the unexplained one-month delay in filing the F.I.R. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the petitioner had been incarcerated for two and a half years, and the trial's delay was attributable to the complainant's requests for adjournments. The key principle laid down is that an accused cannot be kept in indefinite incarceration when the trial's conclusion is not in sight due to the complainant's own conduct, especially where the prosecution's case faces significant evidentiary challenges.
- Can an accused be granted bail when the trial is delayed due to the complainant's frequent requests for adjournments?
- Does a significant, unexplained delay in registering an F.I.R. constitute grounds for granting bail in a murder case?
- Is bail appropriate when the prosecution's case involves allegations of accidental firing during a celebration, contradicting the charge of intentional murder?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 319, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.- - Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. petitioner has applied for post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 85 dated 16-2-2007 registered under sections 302/34 P.P.C. at Police Station Saddar Mandi Bahauddin, on the complaint of Nazir Ahmad son of Meer Muhammad complainant.
2. Precisely the facts of the case as per prosecution story narrated in the F.I.R. are that due to the previous grudge the petitioner committed the murder of the son of the complainant by firing.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the occurrence took place due to firing made by the petitioner in the marriage ceremony and there was no reason for the petitioner to commit the murder of deceased and case does not fall within the purview of Qatle-e-Amd; that there was no intention, mens rea and ill will of the petitioner to commit the murder of the deceased; that on the day of incident brother of the deceased namely Ghulam Farid got recorded Rapat in daily Roznamcha to the effect that the incident had taken place accidentally due to firing made by the petitioner at the marriage ceremony; that at the most the offence falls within purview of section 319 P.P.C. which is bailable; that section 34 P.P.C. has been deleted during the investigation; that motive has not been established during the investigation; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last 2 1/2 years, who may be enlarged on bail.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner is a single accused named in the F.I.R. with specific role of making firing at the deceased; that the medical evidence supported the version of the complainant; that the trial has commenced and statements of two witnesses have been recorded and now is fixed for 11-9-2009 for recording evidence; that recovery of .30-bore pistol has been effected from the petitioner; and that the bail petition may be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. The perusal of contents of F.I.R. itself shows that the firing was made in the marriage ceremony and possibility of commission of accidental incident cannot be ruled out. There was no previous enmity between the parties and a Rappat was got entered by the brother of deceased in the daily Roznamcha that the incident had taken place accidentally. Furthermore the occurrence took place on 15-1-2007 and F.I.R. has been got registered on 16-2-2007 with the delay of almost one month regarding which no plausible justification has been brought up on the record by the prosecution and the same prima facie supports the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that incident had taken place by chance due to firing made by the petitioner in marriage ceremony. Even otherwise the petitioner is behind the bars for the last 2 1/2 years and order sheet has been produced which shows that witnesses were present on some of the dates, but learned counsel for the complainant sought adjournment and numerous adjournments had been granted on request of complainant. In the present scenario when the conclusion of trial is not in sight in near future due to fault of complainant, petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for indefinite period. Hence, this petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1, 00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Duty Judge.
H.B.T./T-15/L Bail granted.