IMRAN alias GOGI Versus THE STATE
This is a post-arrest bail application filed under Sections 497 and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arising from a case registered under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds of inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial. Although the High Court had previously directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within six months, the trial remained pending after more than a year and seven months of incarceration, primarily due to the non-availability of the Presiding Officer and the failure of witnesses to appear. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail due to the prolonged delay in trial proceedings not attributable to his own conduct. The Court held that the petitioner could not be incarcerated indefinitely as a form of punishment when the trial delay was not his fault. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that an accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period when trial progress is stalled through no fault of their own.
- Can an accused be granted bail when the trial is delayed due to the non-availability of the Presiding Officer?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the trial has not been concluded within the timeframe previously directed by the High Court?
- Does the failure of witnesses to appear justify the continued incarceration of an accused awaiting trial?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 12, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this application under sections 497/498, Cr.P.C. petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 118, dated 27-7-2001 registered under section 12, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 read with section 377, P.P.C. at Police Station Fateh Shah District Vehari.
2. The occurrence in the present case took place on 26-7-2001 when the complainant alongwith his son Mujahid Hussain was present in his house, Faisal Raza came to his house and asked the son of the complainant that he needed some lemon, so Mujahid Hussain his son and Faisal Raza both went towards the lemon garden to break some lemon, but when Mujahid Hussain son of the complainant did not return after elapse of considerable time, the complainant felt worried and went to the house of Faisal Raza for inquiry, where both of them were not available. Then the complainant alongwith Haji Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Nadeem went to the garden of lemon for search of Mujahid Hussain, where in the light of the bulb they saw that Imran alias Goggi was committing unnatural offence with Mujahid Hussain whereas Sajjad alias Sajji and Sabir Masih armed with revolver while standing nearby were watching them and Faisal Raza was also present there. All the aforesaid persons or seeing them ran way from the spot, hence, this case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 20-5-2003 wherein direction was issued to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial within six months, but in spite of that trial has not been concluded. Further contends that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about one year and seven months. It is also contended that witnesses did not appear on number of dates and case also could not be concluded due to the transfer of Presiding Officer, hence delay in the disposal of the case is not attributable to the petitioner and his co-accused.
4. Learned State Counsel opposes this application on the ground that the trial in the present case is likely to be concluded in near future.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with due care and caution. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last about one year and seven months and in spite of that direction was issued on 20-5-2003 by this Court for the conclusion of the trial within six months to learned trial Court, due to the non availability of the Presiding Officer trial of the present case could not be completed. The petitioner cannot be kept in jail for indefinite period as a punishment, when there is no progress in the trial without any fault on him. Hence, this application is accepted and the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
H.B.T./I-44/L Bail granted.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUNAWAR alias MUNOO vs THE STATE 2009 YLR 80
- SHAHID alias SHADOO vs THE STATE 2005 MLD 470