RIZWAN AHMED And 2 Others vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's order rejecting the petitioners' bail application in a criminal case. The petitioners were charged under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, read with Sections 436, 336, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident involving arson and robbery at an office. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to statutory bail given that they had been incarcerated for more than two years without the charge being framed. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were entitled to relief based on the duration of their pre-trial detention. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and admitted the petitioners to bail, subject to the furnishing of surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. The key principle affirmed is that prolonged pre-trial incarceration, specifically exceeding the statutory threshold for bail, constitutes a valid ground for the grant of bail, even in serious offenses, provided the statutory requirements are met.
- Does the failure to frame a charge within two years of arrest entitle an accused to statutory bail?
- Can the Supreme Court grant bail to petitioners if the High Court failed to consider the statutory period of detention?
- Section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 436, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.--The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the learned Judges of the High Court whereby their bail application has been rejected.
2. The petitioners were charged under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood), Ordinance, 1979 read with section 436/336/109, P.P.C. According to the F.I.R. The incident happened on 3-5-1994 at 1-30 p.m. When the complainant a Chowkidar of the Office of the Savings Centre, New Karachi reported that he had gone to his house for taking 1 tea. When he returned after 15 minutes, a by whose name he did not know, but could identify him, came out side and told him that he has come from the head office. He asked him to open the shutter of the Savings Centre, which the complainant refused and asked him to come in the morning when the Manager of the Centre would be present. The by went away. On 3-5-1994 at 11-00 p.m. The same by came alongwith 8/9 boys with muffled faces. Three persons with muffled faces caught hold of him and snatched the keys of the Centre. Three of them stood by his side and asked him not to raise any noise or to ran away otherwise he would be killed. All other persons opened the lock of the shutter of the Centre, sprinkled petrol on the office furniture and put it on fire. They were raising slogans of Jiyay Mohajir. While running away they took away one .12 bore gun. It was further stated in the F.I.R.
That he suspected one person, whom he could identify and the other 8/9 persons had committed the crime at the instance of M.Q.M Leader Altaf Hussain. The accused were arrested on 13-5-1994, But so far charge has not been framed the petitioners filed application for bail before the Special Court, which was refused. The bail application filed before the High Court was also rejected by the impugned order dated 12-9-1996.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that although the petitioners are entitled to statutory bail as they are in jail for more than to years, the Courts have not considered this aspect of the case while rejecting the bail application. Leave is granted. The petitioners are granted bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each with one surety each and P.R. Bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court till the final decision of the appeal.