ZULFIQAR ALI vs STATE
This matter concerns two criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving multiple murders and theft, registered under FIR No. 115 of 1995. The petitioners, who had been incarcerated for approximately three and a half years, sought bail primarily on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of their trial, invoking the third proviso to subsection (1) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail due to the delay in trial proceedings. The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to the concession of bail. It found that the delay in the trial was directly attributable to the petitioners themselves, who had failed to engage counsel for a significant period and subsequently sought numerous adjournments. The Court established the principle that an accused cannot claim the benefit of statutory delay in trial under section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, when such delay is caused by their own conduct or failure to cooperate with the trial proceedings.
- Can an accused person claim the benefit of statutory delay in trial under section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if the delay is caused by their own failure to engage counsel?
- Is the concession of bail under the third proviso to section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, available to an accused who has sought numerous adjournments during the trial?
- Does the failure of an accused to engage counsel for a significant period constitute a valid ground for refusing bail on the basis of trial delay?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 449, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 14, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Criminal Miscellaneous No,3038-B of 1999 and Criminal Miscellaneous No,1182-B of 1999, shall be disposed of by this order.
2. Petitioners are accused in criminal case F.I.R. No,115 of 1995, dated 13-4-1995 under section 302/449/380/411/148/149, P.P.C. Read with section 14 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, VI of 1979, registered at Police Station, Nankana Sahib (Saddar), Sheikhupura.
The accused, 11 of whom were nominated in the First Information Report, alongwith 3 unnamed person while armed with various fire-arms attacked the complainant party and shot at Izzat Khan, Liaqat Ali and Nazir Ahmad. All the three victims succumbed to the injuries received. It was further alleged that the accused took away two rifles and a shot gun and cash amounting to Rs,40,000 after the occurrence.
3. The motive for the incident was stated to be that the accused had earlier done to death Tafseer Ahmad and Muhammad Ashfaq and they were forcing the complainant and the witnesses to come to terms with them and on their refusal to do so, they committed the offence.
4. The petitioners were arrested and have applied for grant of bail to them.
5. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners were behind the bars for a period of almost 3/1-2 years and trial of the criminal case has not concluded, thus, for and on that account, they deserved the concession of bail under third proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. It was urged on behalf of Abdul Rashid that his case was at par with that of the co-accused who was allowed bail. Learned Assistant Advocate-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners and contended that the record reveals that the petitioners and his co-accused did not engage a counsel for a considerable period of time and later when the case was transferred for trial to Special Court, Anti-Terrorism, Lahore the accused did not engage any counsel and the counsel engaged by them subsequently sought numerous adjournments and delay having occurred in the conclusion of the trial was attributable to the petitioners and they did not deserve the concession of bail.
6. We have heard the learned counsel and seen the interim order passed by the learned lower Court. The accused did not engage counsel for the almost 1/1-2 years. The case was subsequently transferred to Special Court, Anti-Terrorism, Lahore, where the accused are facing trial now. The accused did not engage any counsel in the first instance and subsequently numerous adjournments were sought for on their behalf. The accused cannot blame prosecution for causing delay in conclusion of the trial of the criminal case against them. Even otherwise, the trial is being conducted by Special Court which is required to conclude the trial within a short span of time and we have no reason to doubt that trial of the criminal case against the accused in case they cooperated with the trial would not conclude by an early date.
7. The petitions are dismissed.