Brig. (Retd.) ASLAM HAYAT QURESHI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by Brigadier (Retd.) Aslam Hayat Qureshi in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) case pending before the Accountability Court No. 1, Karachi. The applicant sought post-arrest bail primarily on the basis of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial, arguing that a co-accused had already been granted bail on identical grounds. The applicant had been in continuous custody since June 12, 2000, for a period exceeding one year, while the maximum sentence for the alleged offence was 14 years. Although Ordinance LIV of 2001 had subsequently deleted the relevant provisos regarding statutory delay under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court held that such amendments do not possess retrospective effect. Finding no delay attributable to the applicant in the trial proceedings, the Court granted bail, subject to the applicant furnishing a solvent surety of ten million rupees and a personal recognizance bond in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
- Does the deletion of provisos to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by Ordinance LIV of 2001 have retrospective effect?
- Is an accused entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay if the trial has not concluded within the prescribed period?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM NABI SOOMRO, J.---Applicant Brirgadier (Retd.) Aslam Hayat Qureshi seeks bail in NAB case Reference No,38 of 2000 pending trial before the Accountability Court No,1, Karachi. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant mainly is that the bail to co-accused namely Ch. Ahmed Mukhtar has been granted by this Court vide order, dated 8-10-2001 on the ground of statutory delay in conclusion of trial under Proviso three of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. His further contention was that the same ground is available to the present applicant and on merits his case is less serious than the of co-accused. Mr. Syed Tariq Ali, learned Federal counsel, however, inter alia contended that the surety amount in the case of present applicant should be more than in the case of co-accused, in view of the prosecution allegations.
2. The applicant was arrested on 12-6-2000 and he is in continuous in custody since last more than one year. Maximum sentence prescribed under the law for the offence is 14 years' R.I. Only. No delay is shown to have been caused by or on behalf of the applicant in the conclusion of I the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant during the hearing produced before us a copy of the Ordinance LIV of 2001 whereby the provisos three and four to subsection. (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C:, have been deleted. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the case of Asif Ali Zardari v. The State reported as 1993 PCr.LJ 781 and submitted that the amendment made in section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. Through the aforesaid Ordinance would have no retrospective effect. Learned Federal counsel has nothing to argue to the above contentions.
5. Bail is accordingly granted to the applicant subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rupees ten million and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- ABID WALI KHOSO and others vs NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU (NAB) 2018 P Cr. L J 1607
- MUHAMMAD RASHEED HASSAN vs THE STATE through Secretary Ministary of Interior and another 2008 PLD Karachi 146