FAZAL AKBAR vs THE STATE
The applicant Fazal Akbar sought post-arrest bail in Crime No. 16 of 1999 registered under sections 392, 397, 364 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Orangi Town, Karachi, after his previous bail application was dismissed by the Sessions Court. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 given that he had been incarcerated for two years. The Sindh High Court held that considering the gravity of the offense, where the accused was arrested red-handed along with the snatched vehicle and kidnapped victim, his act was dangerous and fell within the restrictive provisos of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the bail application and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within one month.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay when charged with heinous offenses like robbery and kidnapping?
- Does the recovery of snatched property and the kidnapped victim at the time of arrest bar the grant of bail?
- Whether the high incidence of car-snatching and violent crimes affects the consideration of statutory delay under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 364, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' Applicant Fazal Akhtar is seeking bail in Crime No, 16 of 1999 under sections 392, 397, 364 and 34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Orangi Town. The applicant has also filed Bail Application before the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, West but without success.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that on 18-1-1999 complainant Zohaib Hussain alongwith Saleman Ghulam Mohiuddin was supplying the products of Philips Company at the shops on Suzuki pick-up No,KB-4036. It was about 2.00 p.m. When Saleman Ghulam Mohiuddin supplied the products to Zahoor Electric Store, Section 6/E, Orangi Town on Bilal Mosque Road. Complainant and Saleman Ghulam Mohiuddin sit on their seats in Suzuki pick-up. In the meantime 3 persons armed with pistols came there. One of them put the pistol at the temple of the complainant and got him down from the driving seat and occupied the seat himself. Remaining two persons sat in the pick-up and they drove away the pickup alongwith salesman Ghulam Mohiuddin and their products.
3. Complainant being driver of the pick-up informed his distributor Haji Muhammad Rafique.
4. Mr. S. Hasan Ali, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant was arrested on 18-1-1999 and since then he is behind the bars; there is no fault at his door with regard to the delay in the conclusion of the trial; in support of his contention, he has relied on PLD 1995 SC 49; he submits that since two years have been elapsed and the applicant is entitled to the concession of Bail on the ground of statutory delay.
5. ' Mr. Sharafat Ali Khan, learned State Counsel has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant with contention that the present accused has been arrested on the same day alongwith car pick-up and the product of Philips: kidnapped Saleman Ghulam Mohiuddin and his act becomes terrorist act. He has placed reliance on 1999 SCM R 131. Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: "S. 497(1) third and fourth provisos---Bail of the ground of statutory delay---High Court being not oblivious of the high incidence of cases of car-snatching in the city, had rightly invoked the fourth proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C. While rejecting the Bail Application of accused---Leave to Appeal was refused to accused accordingly."
6. In the instant case the act of the present applicant is that he has kidnapped Ghulam Mohiuddin and has been arrested on the same day; the Car alongwith the products of Philips Company have been recovered from his possession; on the face of it, his act becomes very dangerous. I am fortified by the Authority of Supreme Court as discussed supra and accordingly the present applicant, at the moment, is not entitled to the concession of bail even on the ground of statutory delay and accordingly his bail application is dismissed.
7. ' The trial Court is directed to make endeavours to complete the trial within one month from the date of receipt of this Order.