ABDUL NAEEM vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the accused, Abdul Naeem, facing trial under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in Crime No. 65 of 1997. The core legal question is whether the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of statutory delay under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, lack of his name in the First Information Report, delayed statements of eye-witnesses, and the principle of consistency based on bail granted to a co-accused. The Sindh High Court held that the accused is entitled to bail, observing that he has been in custody for an extended period without the trial concluding due to no fault of his, that his case falls under the relevant statutory provisions, and that significant discrepancies exist in the prosecution's case regarding the ocular account and delay in naming the accused. The court laid down the principle that prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial, coupled with evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's narrative and parity with co-accused, justifies the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the trial has not concluded without fault on his part?
- Does the principle of consistency apply when a co-accused facing identical allegations has already been granted bail by the trial court?
- What is the evidentiary value of eye-witness statements recorded after an inordinate delay without explanation?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The applicant is facing trial in Crime No,65 of 1997 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Of Police Station Alflah Karachi. The case is pending in the Court of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East. The applicant was arrested in this case on 9-4-1997 and since then he is in custody. It is contended that the trial is not yet concluded without fault on the part of applicant/accused or the Advocate appearing on his behalf. His case is not hit by the IVth Proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C. He is neither desperate nor criminal hardened. It is further asserted that co-accused Jawed Khan was granted bail on 26-2-1998 by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel further argued that even the present accused is entitled for bail on the principle of consistency as the case of co-accused Javed who has been granted bail by the learned trial Court is identical to that of the present applicant. I have heard Mr. Sharafat Ali Khan, Advocate for the State who has conceded to the grant of bail on the ground that the name of accused does not figure in F.I.R. The presence of alleged eye-witnesses is not indicated in F.I.R. At the place of incident. The witnesses did not narrate the happenings of incident to anybody for two days and for the first time the names of accused were taken by them after such an inordinate delay without submitting any explanation.
2. The learned Advocate for State further submitted that accused is in custody for last 27 months and delay is not attributed to defence. He cannot be termed desperate, dangerous or hardened criminal as no such material against him is on record.
3. Accused in this case was arrested on 9-4-1997 and the trial is not concluded. No adverse report is on record to indicate that he is desperate, dangerous or hardened criminal. Co-accused Javed is granted bail about 17 months back. The name of accused does not figure in F.I.R. Eye-witnesses were examined after two days. The contents of F.I.R. Reveal that deceased was taken to Hospital by eye-witness Sultan Akbar immediately after incident. It is surprising, if it is so, then why he did not narrate this incident to anybody.
4. ' For the foregoing reasons, I am of the firm view that the accused is entitled for bail under IIIrd Proviso and the commulative effect of other discrepancies in narrations of incident make the accused entitled for bail.
5. The accused is, therefore, admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (two lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.