TARIQ BUTT vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail after being in custody for over one year following his arrest for possession of a large quantity of heroin. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the third proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which mandates the release of an accused on bail if their trial for a non-capital offence has not concluded within one year, provided the delay was not caused by the accused. The Supreme Court observed that the trial had not concluded within the statutory period and that there was no evidence suggesting the delay was attributable to the petitioner's conduct, despite some adjournments requested by co-accused. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the statutory benefit of bail. The ratio establishes that where an accused has been detained for over a year for a non-capital offence and the delay in trial is not occasioned by the accused's own acts or omissions, the court is obligated to grant bail under the third proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Is an accused entitled to bail under the third proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the trial has not concluded within one year?
- Does the conduct of a co-accused in seeking adjournments preclude the petitioner from claiming the benefit of the third proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Must the court grant bail if the delay in trial is not occasioned by the act or omission of the accused?
- Section 30, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner was arrested on 9-10-1988 when a car driven by him was found to be carrying a very large quantity of heroin. After completion of the investigation, a challan was submitted in the Court of Magistrate exercising enhanced powers under section 30, Criminal Procedure Code. Even though the trial has started, it is clear from the statement made at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Deputy Attorney-General and the Public Prosecutor in charge of the case, that it is unlikely that it would conclude within a short period.
2. Before us the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that the trial has not yet concluded even though he has been in custody for more than one year. In support of this petition the provisions of third proviso to section 497, Criminal Procedure Code are being invoked. This proviso reads as follows:-- "Provided further that the Court shall, except where it is of opinion that the delay in the trial of the accused has been occasioned by an act or omission of the accused or any other person acting on his behalf, direct that such person shall be released on bail--
(a) who being accused of any offence not punishable with death has been detained for such offence for a continuous period exceeding one year and whose trial for such offence has not concluded; or person who, in the opinion of the Court, is a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal."
3. There is no satisfactory explanation why the trial has not so far been concluded. Although it is said that some of the adjournments made by the trial Court were at the request of the co-accused of the petitioner, it is not however the case of the learned Deputy Attorney-General that any of these adjournments was sought by or occasioned by the conduct of the petitioner.
4. After hearing the learned Deputy Attorney-General and the learned counsel for the petitioner we see no reason why the benefit of the above-mentioned proviso be not extended to the petitioner.
Accordingly, we, convert this petition into appeal and direct that the petitioner be released on bail on his executing bail bond in the sum of rupees two lacs, with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Magistrate.
Cited by 3 cases
- Dawa Jan vs The State, etc 2021 IHC 142
- IMRAN MASOOD vs The STATE 2015 P Cr. L J 259
- Senator Lt.Gen. (Rtd.) SAEED QADIR vs THE STATE 1997 PLD Lahore 26