MUHAMMAD RAHIM vs The STATE
This matter arises from a petition directed against the order of the Sind High Court dismissing the petitioner's criminal bail application in a case involving allegations of firing and causing injuries under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions pertain to whether the applicability of Section 307 P.P.C. should be determined at the pre-trial bail stage and whether prolonged incarceration due to absconding co-accused warrants the grant of bail. The Supreme Court held that determining whether the offense falls under Section 307 P.P.C. is premature at the bail stage and must be decided at trial, and further held that delay caused by absconding co-accused does not entitle the petitioner to bail. The Court dismissed the petition while directing the trial court to proceed against the absconding accused under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and expedite the trial. The key principle laid down is that the applicability of specific penal provisions must await trial and delay attributable to absconding co-accused does not automatically furnish a ground for bail.
- Whether the question of whether a case falls under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be determined at the bail stage?
- Does delay in the commencement of a trial due to absconding co-accused entitle an incarcerated petitioner to be released on bail?
- What procedure should a trial court adopt against absconding co-accused to expedite the trial?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMED, J.----This petition is directed against the Order of a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court in Criminal Bail Application No. 48 of 1978 dated 29-1-78. By this Order the bail application of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The case against the petitioner is that he along with four persons duly armed with rifles came to the house of one Mohram and fired aimlessly whereby the mother of the informant Mst. Jamul and brother---s wife Mst. Dadli received fire injuries and on account of the Intervention of the people of village the accused ran away. The petitioner was arrested in. 1975. The other accused are still absconding and therefore the case of the petitioner is awaiting trial.
3. Mr. M. A. Shaikh the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no evidence to show as to who was responsible fast causing injuries to the above mentioned ladies. He contended that this case does not fall under section 307, P. P. C. And therefore the petitioner should be released an bail. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. The question whether the case falls under section 307, P. P C. Or not can only be determined at the trial and it will be premature to express any opinion on this point.
4. It was next contended that the petitioner was arrested in-1975 and the trial has not yet commenced and there is delay. It will be noticed that there ass other accused in the case who are still absconding and it is for this reason that the trial of the case bas not been commenced In our opinion, the delay in the present case does not entitle the petitioner to be released on bail. We would, however, direct the trial Court to proceed against the rest of the accused under section 512, Cr. P. C. And complete trial of the case as expeditiously as possible. With these remarks, the petition is dismissed.