Pakistan Case LawMUMTAZ KHAN Versus STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Mumtaz Khan, who was charged with offences under sections 307/109 and 435/438 of the Penal Code and sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Explosive Act. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the lack of eye-witnesses, the retraction of statements by a key witness, the release of a co-accused on bail, and the prolonged detention without trial or the necessary sanction for prosecution. The Court held that continued detention without trial was improper under the circumstances, particularly noting the absence of eye-witnesses, the fact that a co-accused had already been granted bail, and the failure of the prosecution to secure the required sanction for prosecution under the Explosive Act. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail application, ordering the release of the accused upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety and personal recognizance. The principle established is that prolonged detention without trial, when coupled with the absence of eye-witnesses and the failure to obtain mandatory prosecution sanctions, justifies the grant of bail.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution fails to obtain the necessary sanction for prosecution under the Explosive Act?
- Does the absence of eye-witnesses and the retraction of statements by a key witness constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can prolonged detention without trial justify the grant of bail to an accused charged with serious offences?
- Section 307, Penal Code
- Section 109, Penal Code
- Section 435, Penal Code
- Section 438, Penal Code
- Section 3, Explosive Act
- Section 4, Explosive Act
- Section 5, Explosive Act
- Section 7, Explosive Act
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER.
None appeared from the side of the State today. This- is a bail application moved by Mumtaz Khan alias Raja accused who stands charged with the offences under sections 307/109 and 435/438, Penal Code and sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Act. It was alleged by the Police that explosive substance was supplied to the accused-petitioner by Muhammad Ashraf accused to connect the latter with the former.
The Statements of one Aftab Hussain Shah were recorded under sections 161 and 164, Cr. P. C. during the investigation. That witness has resiled from his statements in the Police and before the Magistrate both and a written affidavit was filed to the effect to - show that it was under the pressure of the Police that he was forced to make a statement before the Magistrate and as a matter of fact he did not know anything with regard to the incident so as to connect any of the accused with it, Muhammad Ashraf accused was let off on bail by the Sessions Judge vide his order dated 13th November, 1980. The other co-accused, namely, Abdul Majid and Iqbal were placed in column No. 4 of the police report against whom no further action is to be launched by the Police. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence. Allegedly only a detonator alongwith a flap was recovered from the possession of the accused-petitioner. He is in custody since 3 rd October, 1980 and has not been placed before Court of competent jurisdiction for trial so far, sanction for his prosecution under section 7 of the Explosive Act has yet been obtained by the Police and whether any steps to secure such a sanction were taken by the Police are still in dark. Therefore, no further detention of the accused without trial of the case against him is proper. He is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety and personal recognizance of the same amount to the satisfac tion of any Magistrate, Rawalakote. He shall on submission of the bail bond and personal bond be released from the Judicial Lock-up, if not wanted in connection with some other case.
Ball allowed.
Judges on this bench
- Sardar Muhammad Sharif Khan184 judgments