Mst. KAUSER PARVEEN alias PARVEEN SHAH vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by Mst. Kauser Parveen alias Parveen Shah seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 397/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 vide FIR dated 25-11-1997. The core legal question concerns whether the female accused is entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay, having remained incarcerated for more than one year without being classified as a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal. The court allowed the application and granted post-arrest bail to the applicant, holding that the statutory period of detention without conclusion of trial warrants the concession of bail, subject to furnishing suitable surety. The key principle laid down is that prolonged incarceration exceeding one year without the accused falling into the category of hardened or dangerous criminals constitutes a sufficient statutory ground for granting bail under criminal jurisprudence.
- Whether an accused person is entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay after remaining in jail for more than one year?
- Does the absence of classification as a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal support the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Whether bail can be granted when the challan has been submitted and the accused has already spent a significant period in custody?
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. The F.I.R. In this case was registered on 25-11-1997 for offence under section 397/34, P.P.C. The learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South while rejecting bail application of applicant on 27-6-1996 mentioned as under:- "The complainant and his wife Mst. Sarla Kumari were also called for ascertaining the true facts as the defence Counsel during the course of argument has argued that a passer-by respectable lady has been falsly implicated in this case by the police. The complainant and his wife has fully corroborated the prosecution version. Since the accused have been apprehended without any delay after the incident and recovery of robbed articles, crime weapon have been made from the accused. The offence has been committed and the arrest of thereafter and as such bail application merits no consideration. "
2. The leaned Advocate for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely involved in this case by complainant due to misunderstanding. Nothing was recovered from her bag except her own cloths. The recovery was made from male accused. The applicant has three minor children who have no other supporter. The challan has already been submitted and the applicant has remained in jail for more than one year.
3. The learned State Counsel supported the order of lower Court and has opposed the grant of bail to applicant.
4. The applicant has remained in jail for more than one year and there is nothing on record to suggest that he is hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal. I, therefore, grant her bail on ground of statutory delay subject to furnishing of surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac only) and P.R.
5. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.