MUHAMMAD RAMZAN KHAN vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was accused of offenses under Sections 399 and 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 pursuant to an FIR registered at Police Station Model Town, Lahore. The core legal question was whether post-arrest bail should be granted where no specific role indicating preparation for dacoity was ascribed to the petitioner and trial proceedings had not commenced despite significant delay. The Lahore High Court observed that although the case was registered in December 1987, not a single witness had been examined by the trial court. Furthermore, the court noted that no specific role was attributed to the petitioner to establish that he was making preparations to commit dacoity beyond his presence with co-accused persons. Consequently, the High Court allowed the bail application and admitted the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds. The key principle affirmed is that lack of specific overt acts and prolonged delay in trial proceedings justify the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when no specific overt act or preparation for dacoity is ascribed to the accused?
- Does an unexplainable delay in commencing trial proceedings entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Whether mere presence with co-accused without evidence of preparation suffices to withhold bail in an offense under Section 399 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 399, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 402, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' A case under section 399/402, P.P.C. Stands registered against the petitioner and some others with Police Station Model Town, Lahore vide F.I.R. Dated 13-12-1987. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was found alongwith his co-accused armed with fire-arm who were making preparation to comm it robbery.
' It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence to indicate what preparation were being made for committing dacoity. Submits that the petitioner was found sitting alongwith others who were apprehended, disclosed to the police that they were going to commit dacoity. Contends that the case is to be tried by Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act where no Presiding Officer has been appointed so far.
2. I have heard learned counsel and perused the file. The case was registered in December, 1987 but till today not a single witness has been recorded by the trial Court. No role as such is ascribed to the petitioner to indicate that he was going to commit the dacoity. In these circumstances, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate concerned. . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 6 cases
- RAHAT SHAH and 3 others vs THE STATE 2002 P Cr. L J 1309
- MUHAMMAD GHAFFAR alias BAIDO vs THE STATE 1996 P Cr. L J 941
- JAMALUDDIN And Another vs THE STATE 1995 MLD 1779
- MUHAMMAD ASIF And Another vs THE STATE 1995 MLD 359
- SHALIMAR FILTER INDUSTRIES Versus JARAR MUSTA.A BOKHARI 1994 PCRLJ 576
- ABDUL WAHID vs THE STATE 1993 P Cr. L J 2254