WAHID BUX vs THE STATE
The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, solely on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after remaining in detention for over two years without any contributory default on his part. The Sindh High Court held that since the applicant had completed more than two years and four months in detention without any delay attributable to him or his defense, he had made out a case for statutory bail. The court consequently allowed the application and directed the release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing requisite sureties. The key principle laid down is that an accused facing trial for an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life (or even in capital cases, subject to the provisos) is entitled to bail as a statutory right if the trial is unduly delayed beyond the statutory period without any default or contribution to the delay on the part of the accused.
- Whether an accused is entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay when he has not contributed to the delay in the conclusion of the trial?
- Does detention exceeding two years without conclusion of trial attract the provisions of the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the effect of prosecution default in producing witnesses and reports on the right of an accused to seek statutory bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 175, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The applicant is facing trial in a case registered at Police Station Dadu for an offence punishable under section 302, P.P.C. He has sought bail only on the ground of statutory delay.
2. ' The applicant was arrested on 27-2-1999 and the charge was framed on 15-6-1999 whereafter the case made a very slow progress and only 5 witnesses have so for been examined. The Investigating Officer and the Mashirs are yet to be examined by the trial Court. The case diaries show that the Court has time and again called upon the prosecution to produce the case property and Chemical Report and even a notices under section 175, P.P.C. Has been issued against the concerned S.H.O. But of no avail.
3. Applicant has completed two years in detention and the learned A.A.-G. Is not able to show if there is any default on the part of applicant or he has in any' manner contributed towards the delay in conclusion of the trial. There are no other case, cases against him and the other reports are also favourable. Since the applicant has remained in detention for a period of more than two years and four months and there is no default on his part in conclusion of the trial, he is entitled to grant of bail on the ground of statutory delay within the meaning of third proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
4. ' Consequently the application is allowed; the applicant be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 (Three lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
5. ' Bail granted.
Cited by 2 cases
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs The STATE and anothers 2014 YLR 1560
- NAZEER AHMED and 2 others vs THE STATE 2003 MLD 1591