MUSHTAQUE alias POLA vs THE STATE
The present application is seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No. 8 of 1999 registered under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Town Mirpur Khas on the ground of statutory delay. The applicant was arrested on February 16, 1999, and the trial had not progressed significantly, with neither the charge framed nor the Ballistic Expert Report received. The core legal question is whether the accused is entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay under the third proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that there was deliberate, unexplained delay on the part of the prosecution and no lapse on the part of the applicant. Applying the principle established in precedent regarding statutory delay, the court ruled that the applicant has made out a good prima facie case for bail. Consequently, the bail application was granted subject to furnishing surety.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay when the trial has not progressed and the delay is not attributable to the defense?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to obtain a ballistic expert report and frame a charge constitute grounds for granting statutory bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5-A, Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Act) 1975
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The present applicant is seeking bail in Crime No,8 of 1999 registered with Police Station Town Mirpur Khas under section 302, P.P.C. He moved bail application before the trial Court on the ground of statutory delay but without success.
2. ' Mr. Qurban Ali Chohan learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the present applicant was arrested on 16-2-1999 and since then the case has not proceeded. According to him even charge has not been framed and he has drawn our attention on the case diary which is available on page 83. He has further argued that the delay cannot be attributed to the present accused. He is neither dangerous nor desperate or hardened and from where the trial Court has gathered that the present applicant is dangerous, hardened and desperate is lacking in the matter.
3. ' On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Azim Panhwar, State Counsel has opposed to the grant of bail on the ground of statutory delay. He has also read the case diaries and has attempted to establish that the charge was not framed on account of absence of the defence counsel. He has made a faint attempt to persuade us that the charge cannot be framed in the absence of defence counsel.
4. He is not duly armed with any relevant law.
5. ' We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties at length. We have also examined the case diaries produced by the learned counsel for the applicant. We have also gone through the impugned order.
6. We have seen carefully the case diaries, the case was being adjourned for want of not only framing the charge but so also for want of A Ballistic Expert Report and till today the same has not been received by the prosecution. We have also gone through section 5-A, Part II of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Act), 1975 wherein it has been held that a Special Court shall not adjourn any trial for any purpose unless such adjournment in his opinion is necessary in the interest of justice and no adjourned shall be granted for more than 2 days. We are quite conscious in dealing with the matter pertaining to S.T.A. And according to aforementioned section it is duty of the trial Court to proceed with the case day to day except in special circumstances. We have found that therec,is deliberate delay on the part of the prosecution and such delay has not been explained h.y the prosecution. Reference may be made to, thecAse. Of;Muharnmad Yousif v. The.State,reported in 2000 SCM R 79/80 wherein the :Honourable :Supreme C911104S4ranted bail to the accused on the ground of statutory delay who was alleged to have used his service rifle to cause diatit:6e Azhar Ali and Khuda Bux and injury ,to qhnlarn Farid.,.Lt,has,heen further obsery,e4,,hy the Honourable Supreme tourt that althoiugh the act of the accusedNyffS,condemnable but bail was granted to hi as his case fell within the e;c5epti9ns to the third PrO'ilrils18`'iSfl'ection401,''Cr.P.C. The petition was C64verted Atp an appeal and the accused was admitted to bail by the Honourable Supreme CourL; In the inatanti.Case,the applicant is,alleged to havekilled one of the deceased. I His attl.Tnay br-condemnable:A0Niew)eflthe authority of the Honourable SupremtnEourt and yet hithscaseois: falling within the exceptions to the third-proviso:to seetion:497iiCr.P.CJa irpi. ',1.::,,h..0. ,:;.; n, We are of the considered view that the present applicant has ol.i..., {{PAGE BLUR}} gopd prima facie case for grant of Marl on the rouml of statutory delay. Ere '-,-; ,,, itv.r g , Y Y. ere is no lapse on the ,part of, e,present applicaz towards the delay. a, All fl .Eoo-v), .,i .1._,_ and Accordingly he is granted bailIn t e sum OfIeS:5,0 ,UUU and P.R. Bond iii in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. i1/4 uiixA btimitstinIA .ft4. ,bri&il Ir.31-it., ,,z, .
7. N H.Q.. /M-251 . .,:i;, T...., 0.Wil,:i,?. Lo bnufm 01 no nod lo /nog Nil 01 te3,0qq13 .a1.1' ranted. 'ill Jed" rlaildw...a of bergraztis aad..Ims...Alitileib u?,:s1 le l hatri i,,,,..1 fl, tEfi ttli .1921W03 T31fit5b .!)fli io ..i.:nv:izt14.10 inuoow; no butrmit :io:1 ...,,-,A, 3.g.:i h3rruit /d 10MIEJ*310.Stio or3QQAIPS6143441:riot th.Trranc. Ittit.t ::,-)brinl 8tn illAVItict Vlii fi!i'ii 113MS ,(11.71: irtilwQ wat15131.A to 's 1f ;;;cff ,xt)icaiiwe {{PAGE BLUR}}
Cited by 1 case
- MUEEN AFTAB SHAIKH vs THE STATE through FIA KARACHI 2012 PLD Sindh 261