JHANDO KHAN Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by an accused person, Jhando Khan, in a criminal case involving a police encounter. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail based on the grounds of hardship due to the prolonged duration of pre-trial detention and the delay in the commencement of the trial. The applicant had been in custody for over one year and two months without any charge being framed by the trial court. Additionally, the defense highlighted that the allegations involved ineffective firing, with no injuries sustained by either party during the incident. The Sindh High Court, noting the concession by the State Counsel regarding the delay in trial, held that the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant were meritorious. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application, directing the release of the applicant subject to the furnishing of surety and a personal recognizance bond. The judgment reinforces the principle that unreasonable delay in the commencement of a trial, particularly when no charge has been framed, constitutes a valid ground for the grant of bail.
- Does the failure to frame a charge within a period of over one year constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail?
- Can the concession by State Counsel regarding trial delay influence the court's decision on a bail application?
- Is the absence of injuries in an alleged police encounter a relevant factor for considering bail?
ORDER
1. It is alleged that a police encounter took place on 24-11-2002 with 13 culprits and there was heavy exchange of fires. Two persons were apprehended at the spot and Charas weighing 1000 grams was secured from their possession. According to F.I.R. the applicant was among the remaining culprits. The case was challaned in the Court and the applicant was arrested on 12-5-2003. It is stated at the Bar that no charge has yet been framed.
2. I have heard Mr. Khalid Hussain Shahani, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Kourejo, learned State Counsel.
3. The bail plea is mainly advanced on the ground of hardship, as the accused has remained in custody for more than one year and 2 months, but up to this time even the charge has not been framed. Besides, this is a case of ineffective firing although the incident occurred during daytime and nobody received any injury from either side.
4. Learned State Counsel conceded to grant of bail in view of delay in trial.
5. In the above stated circumstances, the contentions raised on behalf of applicant carry much weight. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.one hundred thousand and executing P.R. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of trial Court.
6. N.H.Q./J-4/K Bail allowed.