SHAHBAZ ALI Versus State Ali Ahmed Junejo
This is a criminal miscellaneous application for post-arrest bail arising out of Crime No.93/2006 registered under sections 392, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Preedy Karachi. The core legal question concerns whether the continued incarceration of the accused constitutes a case of hardship warranting the grant of bail when the prosecution fails to record ocular evidence within the timeframe previously stipulated by the court. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant is entitled to the concession of bail on the grounds of statutory delay and hardship, noting that the trial could not be concluded in the near future despite the accused having been detained for eighteen months. The key principle laid down is that prolonged incarceration coupled with the failure of the prosecution to examine material witnesses within the directed timeframe constitutes a ground of hardship justifying the release of an accused on post-arrest bail.
- Whether prolonged incarceration without the conclusion of trial constitutes a ground for post-arrest bail on the basis of hardship?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution fails to examine material witnesses within the time period directed by the court?
- Does apprehension on the spot and recovery of property preclude the grant of bail in cases of protracted delay?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. MRS. QAISER IQBAL, J.--- Applicant Shahbaz Ali son of Mujahid Hussain, has repeated the bail application in Crime No.93/2006, under sections 392/324/34 P.P.C. - registered at Police Station Preedy Karachi (South). His bail plea was earlier rejected by this Court in Crime No.113/06 vide order, dated 26-3-2007, whereby the trial Court was directed to record ocular account within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order.
2. The prosecution case emerged on the basis of the statement of complainant Muhammad Jamil, recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. stating there that he was engaged in the business of old parts of the computer. On the fateful day went to Pakistan Chowk. While he was making a call on mobile phone to the shopkeeper, two young boys came on motorcycle, on show of force directed the complainant to hand over his mobile phone. Complainant due to fear had delivered the mobile phone, 'in the meanwhile police' mobile came apprehended the applicant, while his companions managed to flee away.
3. Mr. Ali Ahmed Junejo, learned counsel for the applicant has contended that despite the directions of this Court prosecution has failed to examine the ocular account comprising of three witnesses although sufficient time was allowed to the prosecution to complete the case within the specified time vide order, dated 26-3-2007. It is further contended that case diaries revealed that on each date of hearing the counsel appearing for the applicant was in attendance of Court, witnesses namely, HC-Shafaqat and PC-Jamal were present on 27-7-2007, but the matter was adjourned due to paucity of time, witnesses were bound down, subsequently, the applicant has proceeded to repeat the bail application.
4. Learned State Counsel has opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant was caught on the spot, recovery of mobile from his possession in presence of mashirs was effected.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced at bar.
6. There is no cavil to the effect that edifice of the case is built on the statement of the complainant Muhammad Jamil and the Mashir of the recovery. The applicant is confined in jail for the last 18 months, the charge was framed by the trial Court, directions for recording the evidence has not been, complied with. In any view of the matter, it is a case of hardship when material witnesses could not be examined nor there is likelihood of the completion of trial in near future.
7. Keeping in view the attending circumstances of the case, applicant Shahbaz Ali is entitled to concession of bail, accordingly admitted on bail, subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
8. H.B.T/S-93/K Bail granted.