Dr. GHULAM SAGHIR vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition for post-arrest bail filed by Dr. Ghulam Saghir, who was implicated along with others in the murder of Khalid Mehmood and injury to a minor boy under a First Information Report. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail under the statutory delay provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, given that approximately two years had elapsed since his arrest without the conclusion of the trial or the recording of any witness testimony. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, holding that his case fell squarely within the ambit of the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to the protracted delay in the commencement of the trial not occasioned by the accused. The court laid down the principle that prolonged incarceration without trial within the statutory threshold warrants the grant of bail, subject to the condition of punctuality and representation during the trial proceedings.
- Whether an accused person is entitled to bail under the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the trial has not concluded within two years of arrest?
- Does a delay in examining prosecution witnesses justify the grant of post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Can bail granted on the ground of statutory delay be made subject to cancellation if the accused fails to produce his counsel or absents himself during the trial?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Case was registered against the petitioner and three others for committing the murder of Khalid Mehmood. The allegation against the petitioner was that he was armed with mouzer while attack was opened by Malik Nisar who gave first fire hitting on the left thigh of Khalid Mehmood deceased and it was followed by Dr. Ghulam Sagheer also by firing with mouzer hitting on the right thigh, leg and other part of the deceased Khalid Mehmood who died and a minor boy Sajjad was also injured in this occurrence. The accused was seen by Jehangir and Liaqat when he was running from the place of occurrence. The motive was that the deceased was a P.W. Against Malik Nisar etc.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 13-1-1999, that two years have passed but the trial has not been concluded so far, that even the charge has not been framed. He submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by the third proviso of section 497(1).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon 1997 M LD 1591, 1997 MLD 1255 and 1991 PCr.LJ 254.
3. On the other hand learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the F.I.R. Order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Three co-accused of the petitioner were found to be innocent but later on they all were murdered. Now petitioner is the main accused in this case. Case was fixed for distribution of copies on 29-1-2001 and now the case is fixed for evidence on 1-3-2001.
Two years have passed but not a single witness has been examined so far. Keeping in view the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that case of the petitioner is covered by the third proviso of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. This petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
5. It may be noted here that if during the course of trial or on any date of hearing the petitioner do not produce his counsel or absents himself, learned Additional Sessions Judge can cancel his bail.
With these observations this petition is disposed of. /Order accordingly.