SHAHNAWAZ Versus THE STATE
The applicant Shahnawaz sought post-arrest bail facing trial in Crime No. 32 of 2002 for offences under sections 302, 324, 337-H(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial and lack of specific murderous role, despite previous dismissal of bail on merits. The Sindh High Court held that where the prosecution is slow, fails to produce the accused, and the trial court fails to frame charges or conclude the trial within the timeframe previously directed by the high court, and considering that there were only general allegations against seventeen co-accused without specific attribution to the applicant, a case for post-arrest bail is made out. The court laid down the principle that undue delay in trial attributable to the prosecution and general allegations without specific role assignment warrant the grant of bail to an incarcerated accused.
- Does undue delay in the commencement and progression of a trial by the prosecution constitute a ground for post-arrest bail in a capital case?
- Whether general allegations against a multitude of co-accused without a specific role assigned to the applicant justify granting bail?
- Can bail be granted on the statutory ground of delay even when a previous bail application on merits was dismissed?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. Applicant Shahnawaz, facing trial in crime No. 32 of 2002, for an offence under sections 302, 324, 337-H(ii), 148 and 149, P.P.C. was declined bail on merits by the learned trial Court. This Court's order also in B.A. No.618 of 2003, dismissed the bail application on 26-1-2004, and directed the learned trial. Court to frame the charge and examine the witnesses within three months from the date of receiving of the order of this Court. It appears that the directions of this Court were received by the learned trial Court as referred in the diary, dated 18-2-2004, on examination of diaries up to date thereafter, shows that even charge has not been framed. The prosecution on several occasions failed to produce the accused person who was behind the bar since 8-5-2002, it appears that the charge is also not framed on the ground that co-accused Sajjan has not engaged the counsel. Since the case under section 302, P.P.C. entails capital punishment the learned trial Court may A appoint a pauper counsel for such accused persons, who are unable to engage counsel as there is no reason not to comply with the order of the Court. Where from the record it appears that the prosecution is slow in proceeding with the case and as even police papers were not supplied to the accused person on many dates. Accused is behind bars since 8-5-2002 and despite expiry of period fixed by this Court while hearing bail application. It appears that the prosecution is not keen to proceed with case, the charge as has not yet been framed what to subject, of examination of any evidence. It appears that there are general allegations against as many as 17 people duly armed with weapons to have caused fire at the complainant party which resulted in the death of two persons. There is no specific allegation against the applicant directly. In circumstances and coupled with the delay in prosecution. Applicant is extended bail subject to furnishing two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (two hundred thousand) and PR bond in the like amount. The applicant shall continue to attend trial Court on each and every date. In case, concession of bail is misused or abused, learned trial Court will be at liberty to cancel the bail and forfeit the surety to the State.
2. H.B.T./S-63/K Bail grants.