JHANDO KHAN vs THE STATE
This bail application arises from a criminal case involving a police encounter on 24-11-2002, where thirteen individuals were allegedly involved in an exchange of fire. The applicant, who was not apprehended at the scene but later arrested on 12-5-2003, sought post-arrest bail. The core legal question before the Court was whether the applicant was entitled to bail based on the ground of hardship due to the inordinate delay in the commencement of the trial. The Court observed that the applicant had been in custody for over fourteen months without the charge having been framed, and noted that the incident involved ineffective firing with no injuries sustained by any party. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail application, holding that the prolonged detention without the framing of charges constitutes sufficient grounds for the grant of bail. The principle laid down is that where the trial has been delayed significantly through no fault of the accused, and the charge has not been framed after a substantial period of incarceration, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail.
- Does the failure to frame a charge against an accused after fourteen months of custody constitute sufficient hardship to warrant the grant of bail?
- Is the absence of injuries during an alleged police encounter a relevant factor in considering a bail application?
ORDER
1. ' It is alleged that a police encounter took place on 24-11-2002 with 13 culprits and there was heavy exchange of fires. Two persons were apprehended at the spot and Charas weighing 10-00 grams was secured from their possession. According to F.I.R. The applicant was among the remaining culprits. The case was challaned in the Court and the applicant was arrested on 12-5-2003. It is stated at the Bar that no charge has yet been framed.
2. ' I have heard Mr. Khalid Hussain Shahani, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Kourejo, learned State Counsel.
3. ' The bail plea is mainly advanced on the ground of hardship, as the accused has remained in custody for more than one year and 2 months, but up to this time even the charge has not been framed. Besides, this is a case of ineffective firing although the incident occurred during daytime and nobody received any injury from either side.
4. ' Learned State Counsel conceded to grant of bail in view of delay in trial.
5. ' In the above stated circumstances, the contentions raised on behalf of applicant carry much weight. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs one hundred thousand and executing P.R. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.