Statutory delay

Accused persons were convicted by Trial Court and sentenced to imprisonment for life, who sought suspension of their sentences on statutory delay in conclusion of appeal

Validity

Accused persons had been behind the bars since date of their arrests i.e. 14.4.2012 and they were awarded sentence vide judgment dated 22.12.2017

Accused persons had undergone 8 years of sentence and disposal of appeal was not within sight in near future

Liberty of a person was precious right and the same was also safeguarded/guaranteed under the Constitution

Ground of statutory delay was available to accused persons as provided under S.426(1-A)(c), Cr.P.C.

High Court suspended sentences of accused persons on the ground if after suffering incarceration in jail the accused persons were ultimately acquitted, there would be no compensation for their incarceration

Sentence was suspended, in circumstances.

Allegation against the applicant was that he with pre-planning entered into the house of complainant and allegedly made four fire shots with pistol 30-bore which hit on forehead of daughter of the complainant, because she had refused to marry with him

Allegedly, more than two years and five months had lapsed but appeal of the accused-applicant could not be decided, therefore, he was entitled to the relief on statutory ground of delay in decision of his appeal

Scope

Act of the applicant causing four fire arm injuries that too on the face and head simply on refusal of victim to marry with him, by all means, labelled him a desperate, hardened and dangerous criminal

Applicant was not entitled to the relief prayed for, therefore, the application, having no force or merit, was dismissed.

Qatl-i-khata by rash or negligent driving, hurt by rash or negligent driving, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, qatl-bis-sabab, forgery for purpose of cheating and using as genuine a forged document

Bail, grant of

Statutory delay

Accused was facing trial after his arrest

Prosecution was avoiding to produce witnesses before Trial Court despite issuance of coercive process

Two years had elapsed without any material progress on the part of prosecution

Accused was entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay, in circumstances.

Section 497(1), third proviso, Cr.P.C. mandated the release of accused of an offence detained for a continuous period exceeding one year or two years, as the case might be, but whose trial for such offence had not been concluded within such period

Release of accused on bail was subject to satisfaction of court that delay in conclusion of trial was not occasioned by any act or omission of the accused or any other person acting on his/her behalf.

Bail could not be refused on hyper-technical grounds if case on statutory delay in conclusion of trial was made out.

Petitioner was arrested by National Accountability Bureau on the allegation of corruption and corrupt practices and his earlier bail was refused by High Court

Petitioner again invoked jurisdiction of High Court for his release on bail on the plea of statutory delay in conclusion of trial

Validity

Plea of bail on merits had already been turned down by High Court, therefore, there was no need to re-dilate upon merits of the case

Provisions of S. 497, Cr.P.C. were not applicable for grant of bail to accused persons facing charges in cases under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, however, broader principles of S. 497, Cr.P.C. could be pressed into service in hardship cases to provide relief to a deserving accused person incarcerating in jail for a shockingly long period

Investigation in the case was complete and accused was no more required for further interrogation, who had been languishing in jail for last two years

No material was available to show that it was the petitioner who occasioned delay in conclusion of trial

Case of petitioner fell within the ambit of hardship case

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Public servant committed or attempt to commit criminal misconduct, criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery of valuable security, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document, abetment, common intention, and acquires, converts, possesses, uses or transfers property knowingly or having reason to believe that such property proceed to crime

Bail, grant of

Statutory delay

Scheduled offence

Special Court in Respect of Banks

Jurisdiction of

Special Court could allow bail to accused charged with a Scheduled Offence inter alia on the grounds of sickness, infirmity or delay in completion of the trial, in case of further inquiry and if there was no likelihood of tampering with the evidence by the accused or that continued detention of the accused would hamper his defence, even if there were reasonable grounds to believe, that accused was guilty of the offence

In the present case, accused was behind the bars for more than two years

Neither accused nor any other person, acting on behalf of accused, was in any way responsible for delay in conclusion of trial

Circumstances suggested that accused had made out a case for the grant of bail on the ground of statutory delay

Accused was allowed bail accordingly.

Public servant committed or attempt to commit criminal misconduct, criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery of valuable security, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document, abetment, common intention, and acquires, converts, possesses, uses or transfers property knowingly or having reason to believe that such property proceed to crime

Bail, grant of

Statutory delay

Conditions

Bail to accused on the ground of statutory delay could be granted subject to such conditions that the delay in conclusion of trial had not occasioned on account of an act or omission on the part of accused or any person acting on his behalf; that accused was previously non-convict offender for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life; that in opinion of court the accused was not hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal and that accused was not involved in an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life

If said conditions were not applicable to the case of accused, he was entitled for bail as a matter of right and could not be denied bail under the discretionary powers of the court

Accused was allowed bail in circumstances.

Factors to be considered.

No material was placed before High Court to show that he was previously convicted offender for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or was accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life

One of the co-accused had already entered into a plea bargain with National Accountability Bureau where the entire loss had been repaid

Accused was entitled to be released on bail on statutory delay

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Charge against the accused had to be framed within reasonable period by the Trial Court, but the same had taken more than seven months

Delay in conclusion of trial was not attributed to the accused

No ground was available with the prosecution to decline bail to the accused on the statutory ground

Bail application was, therefore, allowed accordingly.

Sufficient material was available on record to show that finalization of trial could not be taken place mainly on account of delay caused by accused as adjournments were sought in presence of prosecution witnesses

Delay in trial was mainly assigned on the part of accused, which was clear from diary sheets of Trial Court

Bail was dismissed in circumstances.

All four accused remained busy in robbing valuables from the house of complainant for about two hours and when they left the house, inmates were released by people of area and police, then complainant found his son dead

Only thing which did not appeal to prudent mind was as to why and under what circumstances accused had killed son of complainant, in spite of the fact that deceased was tied by his hands and feet and was not in a position to retaliate before four culprits having deadly weapons

Absence of circumstances which compelled accused persons to kill son of complainant indicated that all four accused were hardened, desperate and dangerous persons

Bail under third proviso to S.497, Cr.P.C. could be refused to any accused by Court only on the ground that delay in conclusion of trial had occasioned on account of any act or omission of accused or any other person acting on his behalf

Bail under third proviso to S.497, Cr.P.C. could also be refused by Court if case of accused fell under fourth proviso to S. 497, Cr.P.C. and in such regard Court had to look into the acts of accused as third proviso to S.497, Cr.P.C. was controlled by fourth proviso to S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Case was covered by fourth proviso to S. 497, Cr.P.C., which disentitled accused to grant of bail even on the ground of delay

Bail was dismissed in circumstances.

Principles, enlisted.

One adjournment by accused whether necessary or un-necessary deliberate or non-deliberate might frustrate further dates of hearing as it took hectic efforts to accumulate and motivate all prosecution witnesses, complainant etc. for trial / evidence and one such desire of adjournment on the part of accused might unsettle mind of prosecution witnesses for the next few dates at least if not more and the same did not work on mechanical inclusion and exclusion of the days

Mathematical calculation of excluding adjournments sought by accused or considering dates when presiding officer was on leave would not serve the purpose as one adjournment application on the day when trial could have begun, if granted on account of incapacity of accused to proceed, the whole process would be frustrated and it would again depend on hectic efforts to fix a date and time suitable for witnesses who out of their busy schedule might not get time for next date or so

Accused could not succeed in third proviso regarding delay in trial

Accused failed to make out a case for grant of bail on statutory ground

Bail was refused in circumstances.