INTIZAR ALI vs THE SATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner's bail application had previously been rejected by the Additional District Judge, D.G. Khan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the delay in trial proceedings and the fact that co-accused had already been granted bail. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause, the trial was being delayed due to adjournments sought by the complainant, and co-accused had already been released on bail based on the complainant's statement. Furthermore, the injuries attributed to the petitioner were on non-vital parts of the body, and the petitioner had no prior criminal record. The Court granted the bail application, emphasizing that prolonged trial proceedings and consistent treatment of co-accused are relevant factors in exercising judicial discretion for bail.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal statute?
- Does the fact that co-accused have been granted bail constitute a valid ground for granting bail to another accused in the same case?
- Can the delay in trial proceedings, caused by the complainant's adjournments, be considered a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner was arrested on 11-7-1999 in connection with case F.I.R. No. 269 of 1999 under sections 324/34, P.P.C. Dated 8-7-1999 registered with Police Station Civil Lines, D.G. Khan. His Application for concession of bail was rejected by the Additional District Judge, D.G. Khan, on 29-3-2000.
2. Heard.,
3. For the petitioner it is inter alia contended that the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause and that the two accused were already enlarged on bail on the statement of the complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as the State, however, oppose the prayer on the ground that the evidence in the case has already been started and, therefore, the concession of bail cannot be allowed.
5. However, I will not agree. Learned counsel for the complainant has been successful in pointing out from the record that the evidence in the case is being prolonged due to adjournment being sought by the complainant. The fact that other co-accused was released on bail on the statement of the complainant is also not seriously controverted by the prosecution. In the facts and circumstances of the case the reliance of the learned counsel on Re: Jan A Muhammad v. Haji Noor Jamal and another (1998 SCM R 500) and Re: Karam Ilahi v. The State (PLD 1992 Peshawar 111), are pertinent and relevant. The petitioner is not a previous convict and there is no allegation of misuse of grant of concession of bail, if allowed bail. Injuries attributed to him being on non-vital part of the body, is entitled to concession of bail as prayed for.
6. Accordingly this application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the- sum of B Rs:10,000 with one surety in the like amount