KHALID TAQI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Khalid Taqi, who was charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a murder case registered in 1992. The accused, arrested in 1996, sought post-arrest bail primarily on the ground of statutory delay, as the trial had not concluded despite the passage of two years since the framing of the charge. The trial court had previously rejected the bail application, characterizing the accused as a habitual and hardened criminal due to his involvement in seven other criminal cases. The Sindh High Court examined whether the mere pendency of other criminal cases justifies denying bail on the basis of being a hardened or desperate criminal. The Court held that the trial court's reasoning was erroneous and contrary to established legal principles. Relying on precedents from the Supreme Court, the High Court affirmed that the mere pendency of other cases does not categorize an accused as a habitual or desperate criminal. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the applicant, subject to the furnishing of a bond.
- Does the mere pendency of other criminal cases against an accused justify classifying them as a habitual or hardened criminal for the purpose of bail?
- Can an accused be granted bail on the ground of statutory delay if the trial has not concluded within two years of the framing of the charge?
- Is the pendency of multiple criminal cases a valid ground to deny bail in a murder case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' The applicant/accused is involved in Crime No,37 of 1992 registered at Police Station Jamshed Quarters, Karachi for the offences under section 302/34, P.P.C. It is alleged that along with three other culprits they murdered deceased Shujaat Ali son of the complainant as alleged by her in the F.I.R. Recorded on 13-2-1992. Neither the complainant nor anybody else saw the alleged incident. It is pointed out by the learned State Counsel that two culprits namely Naeem Sharri and Ayaz Ahmed have been murdered and Javed Langra has been shown as absconder in the challah. The applicant/accused was arrested on 15-5-1996 after the lapse of more than 4 years. His bail application was rejected on merits by this Court on 16-3-1998. Thereafter, he repeated his bail application only on the ground of statutory delay as two years have passed and the trial has not concluded as yet. According to the learned defense counsel only the charge has been framed and no witness has been examined. The report obtained from the jail authorities indicate that the applicant/accused is involved in 7 criminal cases. His bail application was rejected by the learned trial Court solely on the ground that since he is involved in 7 criminal cases and the alleged offences are of heinous nature, therefore, he is habitual, desperate and hardened criminal. The view taken by the learned trial Court is erroneous and against the well-settled law. Mere pendency of cases is no ground to treat an accused as habitual, hardened and desperate criminal. Therefore, respectfully following the law laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in Mounder and others v.
2. The State PLD 1994 SC 934 Muhammad Rafiq v. The State 1997 SCM R 412, Ghulam Abbas v. The State 1997 M LD 1743 and Muhammad Ashraf alias Achoo v. The State 1990 ALD 635(1) the applicant/accused is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 8 cases
- ZAHOOR GHALOO vs The STATE 2014 P Cr. L J 1176
- ABDUL AZIZ vs MUHAMMAD AZEEM And 4 Others 2011 YLR 2744
- MANJAWAR SHAH vs THE STATE 2011 MLD 440
- Syed HAMID SHAH vs STATE PLJ 2010 Cr.C. (Lahore) 282
- MUHAMMAD ASIF Versus State 2008 YLR 2105
- KHALID ZAMAN KIYANI vs THE STATE 2008 YLR 545
- NADIR and others vs THE STATE 2008 MLD 1058
- QADIR BUKHSH and others vs THE STATE 2002 YLR 79