MUHAMMAD AZEEM vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by an accused person who had previously been granted bail but subsequently absconded for several years, leading to the initiation of proceedings under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The accused eventually surrendered to the trial court and sought post-arrest bail after his initial bail application was rejected by the lower courts. The core legal question was whether the accused, who had absconded after being granted bail on merits, was entitled to the grant of bail again, particularly given the delay in the trial and the non-availability of prosecution witnesses. The High Court, noting the concession by the State Counsel and the fact that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, held that the accused was entitled to bail. The court emphasized that the prolonged pendency of the case since 1995 and the lack of trial progress justified granting bail subject to fresh sureties.
- Is an accused person entitled to bail if the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the prolonged pendency of a trial without progress constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
- Can an accused who previously absconded be granted bail upon voluntary surrender to the trial court?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 88, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' Mohammad Azeem son of Saeed Ahmed is facing trial before the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, South in Criminal Bail Application 688/2000 registered at Police Station, Clifton.
2. Karachi in F.I.R. No,110/95 under sections 420/468/ 471/34, P.P.C.
3. ' The applicant was arrested by Syed Nazir Hussain, Inspector, C.I.A., Garden Karachi in the abovesaid crime on the basis of the report, case was registered by Clifton Police. During the course of investigation charge-sheet against the abovenamed accused was submitted before the learned A.C.M. On 27-11-1995.
4. ' Applicant/accused was granted bail on 22-3-1995. The applicant/accused while facing trial absented himself on the date of hearing on 14-1-1996 and he remained absent till 19-9-2000. The said case was transferred to learned Judicial Magistrate VIth (South) where the proceedings were initiated under sections 87 and 88, Cr.P.C. Against the applicant/accused and till then the file was kept in dormant. On 19-9-2000 the applicant/accused surrendered before the trial Court and the accused was remanded to judicial custody since then. The bail plea was moved before the learned Judicial Magistrate who was pleased to reject the same on 16-10-2000. Therefore, the bail application was moved before learned Sessions Judge South at Karachi who was pleaded to transfer the same to the learned Additional Sessions Judge South where the bail application was also rejected on 18-12-2000. Therefore the present bail application has been moved.
5. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant/accused was granted bail by the learned A.C.M. II, Karachi on merits, but the applicant accused thought that the case has been concluded therefore the applicant/ accused was not attending the Court due to misconception. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the alleged offence is not punishable to death or life imprisonment or 10 years and as such the case of applicant/ accused does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The applicant/ accused was produced by the surety in the trial Court which suggested that the applicant was not served with the process of proclamation issued by the trial Court and the process was deliberately returned unserved by the process-server, even the Inspector Syed Nazir Hussain Shah who is complainant in the said F.I.R. And the other prosecution witnesses are not traceable.
6. ' The applicant/accused has remained in judicial custody since last more than three months and the applicant/accused was granted bail on merits by the trial Court and the said case is pending since 1995 and there is no progress from the date of institution, up to 11-1-1996. The applicant/accused has rendered himself on 19-2-2000 and there is no process for the conclusion of the case.
7. ' Learned State Counsel has also conceded that the applicant/accused be granted bail on fresh sureties.
8. ' In view of the grounds urged by the learned counsel applicant/accused is entitled for grant of bail till the trial is concluded. The applicant/accused is granted bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.