MEHRAB vs THE STATE
This criminal bail application was filed on behalf of the applicant Mehrab Chandio seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No. 117 of 2003 registered under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Dadu, after his bail plea was declined by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail where he was alleged to have pointed a pistol at the complainant to commit murder but was apprehended immediately by a police mobile without any effective firing or injuries sustained. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant made out a case for bail, noting that no injury was caused and that the applicant had remained behind bars for over seven months with no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future. The court accordingly granted post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of surety, laying down the principle that statutory delay in trial combined with the absence of active injury and no objection from the State can warrant the grant of bail in attempted murder cases.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when no injury is sustained by the complainant?
- Does prolonged incarceration without the likelihood of a trial in the foreseeable future constitute sufficient ground for granting bail?
- Can bail be granted when the State counsel raises no objection to the release of the accused?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' By this order I intend to dispose of criminal bail application filed on behalf of the applicant Mehrab Chandio in a case bearing Crime No.117 of 2003, Police Station Dadu, for an offence under section 324, P.P.C. The bail plea of the applicant was declined by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, vide order dated 31-10-2003.
2. ' The prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. Is that on 2-7-2003 at 12-10 noon complainant Nazeer Ahmed Chandio appeared at Police Station Dadu and lodged a F.I.R. Alleging inter alia that on the eventuful day he alongwith his cousins Chanesar and Ghulam Nabi had come to attend the Court of Sessions Judge Dadu. Before attending the Court the complainant had deposited the licenced gun with the Court's guard and after having date he went to see his counsel in the Bar Room when he was followed by applicant Mehrab. It is alleged that the applicant took out pistol from the fold of his trouser and pointed towards him in order to commit murder but immediately after that police mobile came there who apprehended the applicant/accused. Thereafter the complainant approached the concerned police station where F.I.R. Was registered as stated above.
3. ' The investigation followed and in due course the applicant was sent up to stand trial.
4. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant though armed with a pistol has not used the same. It has further been contended that the pistol was surrendered in the Court before the guard and thereafter he has left for appearing in Court. On return this unhappy incident took place resulting in' arrest of the applicant and thereafter the recovery of licenced pistol from him.
5. ' According to the counsel though fire was made but the same was not effective as none sustained any injury. It has also been propounded that the applicant has remained behind the bars for more than 7 months and there is no likelihood of the trial in a foreseeable future.On all these scores it has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that it is a fit case where the applicant could be enlarged on bail.
6. As against the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant, learned State counsel has raised no objection in view of the above position.
7. What has been discussed above I am of the considered view that learned counsel for the applicant has been able to make out a case for bail which is granted provided he furnishes surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
8. ' Criminal Bail Application No.10 of 2004 stands disposed of.
Cited by 3 cases
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM and 2 others vs THE STATE 2005 P C R L J 437
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others vs STATE PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 57
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus State 2005 PCRLJ 437