FAKHAR ZAMAN alias FAKHAROO vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, who was charged under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal question addressed was whether the accused was entitled to bail based on the ground of statutory delay in the trial proceedings. The applicant had been in continuous custody since January 2, 1996, and approximately 18 months had elapsed without the formal framing of charges or the conclusion of the trial, with no fault attributable to the accused. Additionally, the applicant had been granted bail in eight other cases, and his conduct as an undertrial prisoner was certified as satisfactory by jail authorities. The State did not oppose the application. The Court held that the prolonged detention without the conclusion of the trial, coupled with the applicant's satisfactory jail conduct and the fact that he had been granted bail in other pending cases, established sufficient grounds for relief. Consequently, the Court granted the bail application, subject to the furnishing of solvent surety.
- Does a delay of 18 months in the conclusion of a trial without the fault of the accused constitute valid grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is the fact that an accused has been granted bail in other pending cases a relevant consideration for granting bail in a subsequent case?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' Mr. Mehmood A. Qureshi for the applicant seeks bail for the accused/applicant in Crime No,82 of 1995, registered with Police Station Baldia Town, Karachi for an offence under section 324/34, P.P.C.
2. Mainly on the ground of statutory delay. According to the learned counsel, applicant/ accused was arrested on 2-1-1996 since then he is in continuous custody. Moreover, formal charge in the case has not even been framed and about 18 months have passed but trial has not concluded with no fault of the accused/applicant.
3. ' Regarding the conduct of the applicant in jail, report from the Jail Authorities was called which has been received, which shows that conduct of the accused as undertrial prisoner has remained satisfactory, copy of the jail report has been filed by the learned counsel.
4. ' According to the learned counsel accused/applicant has been granted bail in about eight cases by the Courts having jurisdiction. In Criminal Bail Application No,899 of 1997, applicant was granted bail by my learned brother Zakir Hussain Mirza, J. On 1-7-1997 and copy of the order has also been filed.
5. ' Mr. Muhammad Saleem Samo, learned A.A.-G. Does not controvert the facts stated by the learned counsel for the applicant, and raises no objection for the grant of the bail application.
6. In view of the continuous detention of the accused for about 18 months, the trial has not yet concluded with no fault of the accused/applicant or any person acting on his behalf and in about 8 cases accused/applicant has been granted bail by the Courts having jurisdiction, and the conduct of the accused-applicant as undertrial prisoner has been certified to be satisfactory by the jail authorities.
7. ' For the foregoing reasons at least case for grant of bail has been made out. Consequently, application is granted, accused may be released on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
8. ' M.A. No,1047 of 1997 is dismissed having become infructuous. .