MUHAMMAD YOUNUS KHASKHALI vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by Muhammad Younus Khaskheli seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 365-A, 302, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay under section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, notwithstanding a brief period of absconsion. The Sindh High Court held that where the accused had remained in continuous custody for over seven and a half years with only a one-month break of absconsion, his case fell within the purview of the statutory delay provisions. The Court laid down the principle that a brief, non-deliberate absence does not disentitle an accused to statutory bail when the overall period of incarceration exceeds the statutory limits prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Whether an accused who absconded for a brief period is entitled to statutory bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after remaining in custody for a prolonged period?
- Does a one-month absence of an accused disentitle him from claiming the benefit of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial?
- What is the effect of prolonged incarceration exceeding seven years on the right to post-arrest bail in heinous offences?
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Applicant Muhammad Younus seeks bail in a case under sections 365-A, 302 and 34, P.P.C.
Registered against him and others on 2-9-1990 vide F.I.R. No,735 of 1990 Police Station Ferozeabad, Karachi East.
2. The applicant was arrested on 5-1-1993 and was released on bail on the ground of statutory delay in conclusion of the trial by the learned trial Court on 19-3-1997. The applicant, however, absented himself on 18-8-1997, on which date the application for condonation of his absence was moved which was not allowed and non-bailable warrants were ordered against the applicant with a notice to his surety. On 3-9-1997 the bail of the applicant was cancelled and the case was adjourned to 19-9-1997 when on that date the surety appeared in Court and informed the Court that the applicant had been arrested and was in custody. The applicant has again been in custody since September, 1997 till today.
3. It was contended by Mr. Shandat Awan, learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has remained in custody for nearly three years on account of his absence for one month. The learned counsel urged that the applicant has been sufficiently punished for alleged absence, which was neither wilful nor deliberate. The learned counsel further added that three co-accused in the case stand acquitted in their appeals against conviction by this Court.
4. Mr. Farrukh Zia Shaikh, learned counsel appearing for the complainant vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the applicant stating that the applicant neither surrendered before the Court nor before the police but was arrested by police in compliance of the order of non-bailable warrants issued by the learned trial Court. It was further contended by learned counsel that the applicant was a hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal as he was involved in another identical case also.
5. Mr. Syed Jalil A. Hashmi, learned A.A.-G. Also supported the contentions raised on behalf of the complainant while opposing the bail plea of the applicant.
6. The applicant was granted bail on the ground of statutory delay in conclusion of the trial after remaining in jail firstly for more than four years and secondly for nearly three years after his alleged absconsion for one month. The absconsion for only one month was, however, not disputed by the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.A.-G. The applicant has admittedly remained in continuous custody for more than 7 and 1/2 years except the abovesaid break for one month. Keeping in view the case of Zahid Hussain Shah v. The State PLD 1995 SC 49, we are of the considered view that the applicant's case falls within the proviso three of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. We accordingly allow bail to the applicant subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs,4,00,000 (Rupees four lacs only) and P.R., Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
7. Bail was allowed to the applicant by a short order, dated 8-8-2000, above are the reasons for the same.