PANJAL vs THE STATE
This criminal bail application was filed by Panjal before the Sindh High Court seeking post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay, facing trial under sections 307, 353, 332, and 333 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether an accused person is entitled to bail on the statutory delay ground under the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the trial has been delayed and charge has not yet been framed, despite adjournments sought by the accused. The court held that until a charge is framed, no delay in the trial can be attributed to the accused person even if adjournments were sought by them. Finding that the applicant had remained continuously in custody for almost two years without a charge being framed, the court granted bail, establishing the principle that the statutory exception withholding bail due to delay caused by an accused only applies after the framing of the charge.
- Can delay in trial be attributed to an accused person before the framing of the charge for the purpose of denying statutory bail?
- Whether an accused who remains in continuous custody for nearly two years without a charge being framed is entitled to bail under the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Do adjournments sought by an accused prior to the framing of the charge disentitle them to the concession of statutory bail?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 332, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 333, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' This application for bail has been presented on behalf of Panjal son of Allah Bakhsh, who is facing trial under sections 307, 353, 332 and 333 P.P.C. Vide Crime No,78/88 of Police Station Ahmad Pur in the Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur.
2. The only ground taken in the bail application and urged before me is the statutory delay. The applicant was admittedly arrested on 11th August, 1988 and it is since then that he is continuously in custody. It is stated at the Bar that even charge has not been framed so far. The learned A.A.-G.
Does not object to the grant of bail although certain adjournments have been sought by the applicant during this period.
3. I am of the opinion that since charge has not been framed in the case, the adjournments if any, taken by the applicant were even otherwise of no significance inasmuch as it is the delay in the trial of the accused, which has been caused by an act or omission of the accused or any other person acting on his behalf which disentitles him to the concession of bail under 3rd proviso to section 497(1), Criminal Procedure Code. Unless charge is framed no delay in trial can be attributed to the accused person even if he had sought certain adjournments. However, in the instant case, the applicant having remained continuously in custody for almost two years, he is entitled to the concession of hail under 3rd proviso to section 497(1), Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant, therefore, be released on bail subject to his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 with P.R.
Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 11 cases
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus State 2018 PCrLJN 77
- IMRAN MASOOD vs The STATE 2015 P Cr. L J 259
- MAKHMOOD HUSSAIN vs The STATE and another 2013 YLR 679
- MUHAMMAD AMIR vs THE STATE 2001 YLR 1011
- JAVED ALI vs THE STATE 2000 YLR 2581
- MUHAMMAD AZEEM vs THE STATE 2000 MLD 1231
- SAJID IQBAL vs MUKHTAR AHMAD and 2 others 1998 P Cr. L J 299
- AFAAQ ANJAM and others vs THE STATE 1997 P Cr. L J 1344
- ABDUL MAJEED Versus THE STATE 1996 PCRLJ 298
- Haji NIAZ vs THE STATE 1995 P Cr. L J 1934
- MUHAMMAD SHABBIR vs THE STATE 2000 MLD 12