ABDULLAH Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Abdullah, who was charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his brother-in-law. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the significant delay in the conclusion of the trial and the fact that he had been incarcerated for over three years without the trial court recording the testimony of any public witnesses. The Court held that the petitioner should be admitted to bail, observing that the prolonged detention of an accused without meaningful progress in the trial constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court. Furthermore, the Court noted that a compromise had been reached between the petitioner and most of the legal heirs of the deceased. The key principle laid down is that an accused cannot be detained in jail for an unlimited period, and an inordinate delay in the conclusion of a trial provides sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Does an inordinate delay in the conclusion of a trial justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can a compromise between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased be considered as a ground for bail in a murder case?
- Is the detention of an accused for an unlimited period without trial progress considered an abuse of the process of the court?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Abdullah son of Dildar, petitioner, has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.155, registered at Police Station Kot Mubarak, District D.G. Khan on 8-6-1999, for offences under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. According to F.I.R., the petitioner while armed with pistol fired at the abdomen of Ghulam Yasin, brother of the complainant, who fell down on the ground and died at the spot. Further stated that Ghulam Yasin, deceased, was brother-in-law (Behnoi) of the petitioner and the deceased had stopped his wife from meeting with her brother.
3. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 18-6-1999 and after completion of investigation is behind the bars.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that the petitioner is behind the bars for more than three years but not a single public witness has been recorded by the trial Court so far. The last witness was recorded on 29-8-2001 about two years ago, who was draftsman. All the legal heirs of the deceased, except Mst. Sakina have entered into a compromise with the petitioner. No one can be detained in jail for unlimited period. Such a long delay in conclusion of trial by itself is an abuse of the process of the Court.
5. For what has been discussed above, I am inclined to accept this petition and admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rupees one lac, with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Judge.
H.B.T./A-652/L Bail granted.
Cited by 3 cases
- ABDUL KARIM alias KAROO and another vs THE STATE 2009 P Cr. L J 582
- ABDUL KARIM alias KAROO and others vs THE STATE 2009 YLR 71
- SHERAZ MEHMOOD vs THE STATE and another 2005 YLR 2467