MUHAMMAD AMIN Versus THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a second post-arrest bail petition filed by Muhammad Amin, who is facing trial in case F.I.R. No. 197 of 2000 registered under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Garjakh, District Gujranwala, relating to the robbery of a taxi. The core legal question is whether the accused is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration, delay in the trial not attributable to him, non-arrest of co-accused, and lack of recovery from his person, notwithstanding the dismissal of his earlier bail application. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail as he has been in continuous incarceration since July 2000, the trial has not concluded expeditiously without fault on his part, and bail cannot be withheld as a punishment. The Court accordingly admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of surety bonds.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration and delay in trial not attributable to him?
- Can bail be withheld as a punishment in criminal cases?
- Whether subsequent change in circumstances, such as transfer of case and delay in conclusion of trial, warrants the grant of repeat bail petition?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J. ‑‑‑Muhammad Amin petitioner seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.197 of 2000, dated 18‑6‑2000 under section 395, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Garjakh, Distt. Gujranwala at the instance of Muhammad Abdullah with the allegation that his co‑accused hired taxi from the complainant from Renala Khurd and he took the co‑accused of the petitioner to Gujranwala where they spent a night and on the next day all the accused including the petitioner were going to Sheikhuprua and on the way they snatched the taxi after tieing the hands of the driver and threw him in the field and took away the taxi. After arrest bail was refused to the petitioner vide this Courts order dated 4‑6‑2001 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2722‑B of 2001 mainly on the ground that trial has already commenced.
2. The petitioner has repeated his petition challenging that he was arrested on 2‑7‑2000 and at the time when he filed the earlier petition for bail the challan was submitted before the Court of Special Judge, ATC as it was scheduled offence but now after amendments in the law the case has been transferred to Judicial Magistrate and the co‑accused so far have not been arrested and delay is not attributable to the petitioner. He is in continuous incarceration since his arrest, therefore, he is entitled for concession of bail. Nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and he was not accompanying his‑co‑accused at the time when the vehicle was hired by his co‑accused.
3. Conversely, the bail has been opposed by the learned State Counsel.
Heard. Record perused.
4. The petitioner was arrested on 2‑7‑2000 and after completion of investigation he has been sent in judicial lock‑up. Copy of the order sheet produced by the learned counsel shows that the delay is not attributable to the petitioner. His co‑accused have not been arrested so far. There is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial. The petitioner is previously non‑convict. Bail cannot be withheld as a punishment.
5. Therefore, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./M‑2422/L Bail granted.