MUHAMMAD HASSAN and anothers vs THE STATE
This bail application concerns two applicants facing trial for offences under sections 324 and 353 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an alleged encounter with police. The core legal question was whether the applicants, having been in custody for over thirteen months and having already secured bail in a related case, were entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail in the instant matter. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the applicants' resistance to arrest and the alleged exchange of fire. The Court observed that the applicants had already been granted bail in the main case registered under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and noted the uncertainty regarding whether a separate case under the Arms Ordinance had been registered concerning the recovered weapons. Given the duration of incarceration and the nature of the allegations, the Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail. The principle laid down is that prolonged pre-trial incarceration, combined with the grant of bail in connected criminal proceedings, constitutes sufficient grounds for the exercise of judicial discretion to grant bail.
- Does prolonged pre-trial incarceration for over one year justify the grant of bail in a case involving alleged firing at police?
- Is the grant of bail in a related case a relevant factor for the court when considering a bail application in a subsequent criminal matter?
- Should bail be granted when the prosecution fails to confirm the registration of a separate case regarding the recovery of weapons?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 13(d), Arms Ordinance 1965
ORDER
1. ' Applicants are facing trial for an offence punishable under sections 324, 353/34, P.P.C.
2. ' It is the case of prosecution that on 20-1-2003 complainant S . I. P. Abdullah Khan, S.H.O., Police Station K.N. Shah received a message that three persons riding a motorcycle were signalled to stop by the police belonging to Thariri Mohabbat but they succeeded in running away, therefore, blockade may be held. The S.H.O. Took his subordinate staff and held Nakabandi. The motorcycle appeared at 11-30 a.m. And on seeing police party they took a turn to go back but they lost balance and fell down. One of them identified to be Manzoor managed to escape but the other two after an encounter of 25 minutes were captured and a K.K. And pistol were secured from the applicants.
3. ' I have heard Mr. Abdul Rasool Abbasi, Advocate for the applicants and Mr. Gul Hassan Solangi, learned counsel for the State. The latter has opposed the bail on the ground that the applicants had initially resisted their arrest and fired at police party.
4. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the main case registered as Crime No.16 of 2003 for an offence under section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of.
5. Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, the applicants have already been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar. As regards the recovery of K.K. And pistol. Learned State Counsel is not aware if any case under section 13(d), Arms Ordinance has been registered or not. As far the instant case is concerned, the allegations are only of ineffective firing although it is said that exchange of fires continued for about 25 minutes. The applicants have remained in jail for a period of more than one year and one month. In the circumstances, they appear to be entitled to concession of bail.
6. ' In result of the above, the application is allowed. The applicants be released on bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.