SAHIB DINO alias SABOO Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Sahib Dino alias Saboo, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The applicant had been incarcerated since January 17, 1995, in connection with this offence, which arose as an offshoot of a separate murder case. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail based on the statutory delay in the trial and the nature of the offence. The Court observed that the offence under Section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance carries a maximum punishment of seven years, thereby falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Given the significant period of incarceration exceeding two years and the State's lack of objection, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail. The principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., and the accused has suffered prolonged pre-trial incarceration, bail should be granted.
- Does an offence under Section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the offence charged is not covered by the prohibitory clause and the accused has been incarcerated for a significant period?
- Section 13(e), Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. The present applicant is seeking bail in Crime No.7 of 1995 registered with Police Station Waggan under section 13(e), Arms Ordinance. He moved bail application before the trial Court, but without success, hence this application.
2. The present case bearing Crime No.7 of 1995 under section 13(e), Arms Ordinance is off shoot of Crime No.3 of 1995 in which the present applicant was refused bail by the trial Court and thereafter he moved bail application before this Court and the directions were given by this Court to the trial Court to conclude the trial within two months.
3. The main contention of Mr. Nisar Ahmed Abro, Advocate for the applicant before us is that the present applicant is behind the bars since 17-1-1995 and he has created right of bail on the ground of statutory delay and as far as the main case being Crime No.3 of 1995 under section 302, P.P.C. is concerned, the present applicant will move before the trial Court for grant of bail in the light of the directions of this Court when the two months will be elapsed.
4. Since the present applicant is behind the bars for the last more than two years and the offence is under section 13(e), Arms Ordinance which is punishable at the most viz. seven years maximum and minimum three years and in view of no objection given by Mr. Abdul Fatah Mughal, Advocate for A.A.-G. for the State that the offence is only punishable with ,seven years and is not being covered by prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. and at the same time, the accused is behind the bars since 17-1-1995 and on such no objection we are granting bail to the present applicant in the sum of Rs. one lac and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
5. H.B.T./S-44/K Bail granted.