MUHAMMAD SHAHID Versus THE STATE
This is a bail application filed by the accused, Muhammad Shahid, who is facing trial for an offence under Section 392/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The accused was previously convicted by an Anti-Terrorism Court, but that conviction was set aside on appeal, and the case was remanded to the Sessions Court for trial. The core legal question is whether the accused is entitled to bail based on the prolonged period of incarceration and the nature of the complainant's testimony. The court noted that the accused had been in custody for over two years and eleven months, and the trial was proceeding slowly, with only one witness examined since the case was transferred. Furthermore, the State did not oppose the bail application after reviewing the complainant's deposition, which indicated procedural irregularities regarding the identification parade. The court held that, given the delay in the trial's conclusion and the lack of opposition from the State, the accused was entitled to bail. The principle laid down is that prolonged pre-trial incarceration, coupled with a slow trial pace and a weak prosecution case, constitutes sufficient grounds for granting bail.
- Does prolonged pre-trial incarceration combined with a slow trial pace constitute sufficient grounds for granting bail?
- Can bail be granted when the State does not oppose the application based on the complainant's deposition?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. This is an application for bail of the accused Muhammad Shahid who is facing trial for an offence under section 392/34, P.P.C. along with co-accused Muhammad Aamir before the Court of learned Iind Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi Central.
2. The facts relevant are that the applicant and his co-accused were first challaned before the Anti-Terrorism Court at Karachi, who were convicted and they preferred an appeal before this Court. In the appeal the judgment of conviction was set aside and the case was ordered to be tried by the Sessions Court having jurisdiction.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned transferee Court after receipt of the case has been able to examine the complainant only on 8-5-2003. It is urged that the applicant has remained in custody for more than two years and eleven months as he was arrested on 6-4-2001 and that tie complainant has not implicated the applicant in his evidence.
4. Mr. Habibur Rashid, learned counsel appearing for the State after going through the deposition of the complainant Syed Imran Ahmed which has been filed with this application (page 51) submits that the complainant has stated before the Court that A.S.-I. Sarwar Hussam of Police Station Buffer Zone had asked the complainant to identify both the accused persons before the Judicial Magistrate in the identification parade.
5. In view of the Wave, the learned State Counsel does no oppose the prayer of bail to the applicant. .
6. For the reasons as aforementioned, in my view the' applicant's case does not seem to be concluding in near future as only one witness has been examined so far, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. The applicant is allowed bail subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. H.B.T./M-23/K Bail granted.