Pakistan Case Law
2004 PCRLJ 618

NADEEM-UL-HAQUE Versus THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2004 PCRLJ 618
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Criminal Bail Application No. 121 of 2003
Date2003-03-10
Judge(s)Muhammad Ashraf Leghari
ResultBail granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This is a criminal bail application filed by applicant Nadeem-ul-Haque, who was booked under sections 392 and 342 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in F.I.R. No. 14 of 1998 registered at Police Station Saddar, seeking post-arrest bail on the statutory ground of undue delay in the conclusion of the trial. The core legal question revolves around whether an under-trial prisoner who has undergone a substantial portion of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offense, coupled with protracted trial proceedings and no fault of his own, is entitled to the concession of bail. The Sindh High Court allowed the bail application and held that keeping an accused in custody for an indefinite period when only three out of eight witnesses had been examined over nearly five years constituted shocking delay. The key principle laid down is that prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial, approaching a major portion of the maximum possible sentence, warrants the grant of post-arrest bail.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail on the ground of protracted trial and delayed conclusion of proceedings?
  • Does incarceration for a period spanning nearly five years for an offense carrying a maximum sentence of ten years constitute a ground for grant of bail?
  • Can an accused be kept in indefinite custody when the prosecution fails to examine the majority of cited witnesses?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
post-arrest bailstatutory delayunder-trial prisonerrobberydelayed trial

ORDER

1. Applicant Nadeem‑ul‑Haq is booked for an offence under sections 392 and 342, P. P. C. in F. I. R. No. 14 of 1998 of Police Station Saddar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant Muhammad Akbar lodged F.I.R. at Saddar Police Station alleging therein that on 22‑1‑1998 at 6‑00 p.m. three young unknown boys intruded into the house and robbed Rs.51,500 cash, golden ornaments, licensed pistol and wrist watches on gun point.

3. After registration of F.I.R. the police took up investigation and submitted challan. At present the case is pending trial in the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel that the present applicant was arrested on 25‑6‑1998 and since then there is no progress in the trial and the conclusion of trial is still not in sight in near future.

5. 1t is submitted that the maximum sentence as provided under section 392, P.P.C. is only 10 years and half of the maximum sentence he will complete as an under‑trial prisoner on 25‑6‑2003. His bail application was moved before this Court which was decided on 23‑5‑2002 with the directions to the trial Court to examine remaining witnesses and conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within two months. His another bail application was decided by this Court on 23‑10‑2002 with the directions to the trial Court to consider the bail application of accused on the ground of delay.

6. It is submitted that in all 8 witnesses have been cited in challan, out of whom only 3 witnesses could be examined so far.

7. It is submitted that co‑accused Amir Rehman has been granted bail on 29‑11‑2001. The bail order indicates that bail has been refused to this accused on the ground that he is involved in some other three cases and he is desperate and dangerous.

8. Mr. Habib‑ur‑Rasheed learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the bail plea of accused.

9. Admittedly the accused is in jail for the last about little less than 5 years. Out of eight witnesses, only three could be examined so far.

10. The maximum sentence provided under section 392, P.P.C. is 10 years only. The record shows that he has served out the major portion or the maximum sentence. The detention period as an under‑trial prisoner is shocking one and people could not be allowed to remain in custody for indefinite period. Co‑accused Amir Rehman has been granted bail by the trial Court.

11. In this view of the matter, the accused is granted bail in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction on the trial Court.

12. H.B.T./N‑9/K Bail granted.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.