AMIR vs THE STATE
This criminal bail application before the Sindh High Court concerns an accused, Amir, detained since November 1987 in connection with a case registered under sections 302, 504, 34, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail based on the statutory delay in the conclusion of his trial, given that he had been in continuous detention for approximately three years. The Court observed that the delay in trial disposal could not be attributed to the applicant, as his few requests for adjournments were based on genuine grounds, such as counsel illness or pre-occupation. The Court held that legitimate requests for adjournments do not bar an accused from invoking the statutory right to bail. Establishing that the applicant had exceeded the statutory period for detention without trial, the Court granted the bail application. The key principle laid down is that an accused cannot be penalized for seeking adjournments on valid grounds, and such requests do not negate the statutory right to bail when the detention period exceeds the prescribed limit.
- Does a legitimate request for an adjournment by an accused bar the invocation of the statutory right to bail due to trial delay?
- Can an accused be penalized for trial delays caused by the illness or pre-occupation of their counsel?
- Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of right if they have been in continuous detention for more than two years without the trial being concluded?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 344, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Applicant Amir who is detained in Crime No.138 of 1987, Mirwah Police Station, under section 302/504/34/114, P.P.C. Applied for bail before learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur, mainly on the ground of statutory delay, but without success. He has now approached this Court with the same prayer.
2. I have heard Mr. Abdul Hameed Dogar, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi, learned A.A.-G. For State. The latter has raised no objection to the grant of bail.
3 Admittedly the applicant is in continuous detention since 22-11-1987 and the case has not been disposed of up to this time although period of about three years has elapsed. The delay in the disposal of the case again cannot be attributed to the applicant who except on three occasions did not seek adjournment and all the three times the request was made on genuine grounds. The word occasioned used in third proviso to subsection (1) means to cause or to bring about. Any legitimate request for an adjournment will not be a bar for invoking this proviso. It may be noted that under section 344, Cr. P.C. An adjournment can be sought by or on behalf of accused, which shall be granted, if there are valid reasons for the same. The policy of criminal law is to bring accused persons to justice as early as possible and if they are found guilty, they may be punished and if they are found innocent they may be acquitted, but the Court will certainly not refuse to exercise its discretion to adjourn the case when there is reasonable cause for the same. The applicant, therefore, cannot be penalised due to illness of his counsel or his pre-occupation in superior Courts. In such a situation, the applicant who is in continuous detention for more than two years is entitled to the grant of bail as of right. Even if the period for which the adjournments were sought is excluded in computing the statutory period, the applicant had still completed tile statutory period. Accordingly I am in agreement with the view taken by learned A.A.-G. And grant bail to applicant, who shall be released on bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rs. One lac) only with P.R.
Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 23 cases
- Syed RASHID HUSSAIN RIZVI vs CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY 2017 MLD 818
- ATTA ABBAS ZAIDI vs CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU (NAB) 2017 PLD Sindh 120
- MEHBOOB vs The STATE 2014 MLD 641
- NABIDAD and 2 others vs THE STATE 2012 MLD 593
- WASIM alias WIZI vs THE STATE 2002 P Cr. L J 1098
- ALI HASSAN and another vs THE STATE 1999 YLR 141
- ABDUR RASHID vs THE STATE 1998 SCMR 897
- AFAAQ ANJAM and others vs THE STATE 1997 P Cr. L J 1344
- Haji JAVED AHMAD and another vs THE STATE 1997 PLD Karachi 156
- QAISER MEHMOOD vs THE STATE 1996 MLD 157
- ABDUL MAJEED Versus THE STATE 1996 PCRLJ 298
- KHALID NAWAZ and anothers vs THE STATE 1996 MLD 118
- OMAIR AHMED SIDDIQUI Versus THE STATE 1996 PCRLJ 22
- JAN MUHAMMAD BROHI and others vs THE STATE 1996 P Cr. L J 863
- QAISER ABBAS vs THE STATE 1995 P Cr. L J 693
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs THE STATE 1999 P Cr. L J 501
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus STATE 1992 MLD 1814
- SHERAZ KHAN and anothers vs THE STATE 1991 MLD 2262
- Malik MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs THE STATE 1991 PLD Karachi 351
- Malik MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs THE STATE 1991 P Cr. L J 2335
- Syed MUHAMMAD ALI HASHMI vs THE STATE 1992 P Cr. L J 1178
- MUHAMMAD SHABBIR vs THE STATE 2000 MLD 12
- Irfan Ali vs State