MUHAMMAD SHABBIR Versus State
This matter concerns a second post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who is accused in FIR No. 529 dated 18-9-2006, registered at Police Station Jhall Chakian for offenses under sections 324, 337F(i), 337F(iii), 337F(v), 334, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner is alleged to have caused a firearm injury to the complainant's hand. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the duration of incarceration and the delay in trial proceedings. The Court observed that the trial was actively in progress and that the delay in its conclusion was attributable to the conduct of the accused/petitioner himself, as evidenced by the order-sheet. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought. The key principle laid down is that an accused cannot claim the benefit of delay in trial proceedings when such delay is caused by their own conduct, thereby disentitling them to the concession of post-arrest bail.
- Can an accused be granted bail when the delay in the conclusion of the trial is attributable to their own conduct?
- Is a second bail application maintainable when the trial is actively in progress and the delay is caused by the accused?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 334, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.---- Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail of petitioner in FIR. No.529, dated 18-9-2006, Police Station Jhall Chakian under sections 324/337F(i)/ 337F(iii)/337F(v)/334/34, P.P.C. This is second bail application. Earlier was dismissed vide Criminal Miscellaneous No.4434-B of 2007.
2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R., the petitioner is attributed fire-arm injury which hit the left hand of the complainant.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to him, the injured who was subsequently died was not caused any injury by the petitioner and he was served substantial time in jail but the trial has not been concluded.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General have opposed granting of bail on the ground that the trial could not be concluded because of conduct of the petitioner/accused. In this regard they have submitted the order-sheet which supports their contentions. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, hand of the complainant was fractured with the fire of the petitioner. It is clear from the record that trial is in progress and if there is any delay in the conclusion, the accused are also responsible to that. In view of the above this bail application is dismissed.
H.B.T./M-160/L Bail refused.
Cited by 2 cases
- Syed Qurban Ali Shah and others vs The State 2024 SHC 438, 2025 YLR 246
- Syed Qurban Ali Shah Versus State 2025 YLR 246