Ground of statutory delay

2023 PCrLJ 1461 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 302, 324, 404, 436, 427, 353, 395, 396, 148 & 149Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, dishonestly receiving stolen property, mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his public duty, dacoity, dacoity with murder, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, act of terrorism

Bail, grant of

Ground of statutory delay

Long incarceration

Scope

Allegation against the accused was that they attacked on police party, put the police official into the mobile and set the mobile on fire, took the weapons of police, motorcycle and wireless, police also made firing in retaliation, due to which five police officials died and many were injured

Record showed that High Court originally rejected the applicants' bail on merits, however the Supreme Court over 9 years ago directed the trial to be completed within 6 months

Record transpired that there still remained fifteen witnesses to be examined and as could be seen from the FIR there were many absconding accused who could be arrested and the trial would restart again from scratch as had happened twice in the past

Both the applicants had only been given a general role in the FIR as opposed to a specific role in killing any of the police men and that no witness so far had deposed to that effect against either of them

Petitioners/accused had been in jail for eleven and over nine years respectively and no delay had been caused on their part or the part of their counsel in concluding the trial as conceded by the State counsel

Fact remained that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the foreseeable future

Based on Art. 10-A of the Constitution, the delay in conclusion the trial had reached shocking levels

No one could be incarcerated indefinitely pending the conclusion of trial and bail could not be refused as a punishment

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

2019 PCrLJN 15 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 353, 114, 148 & 149

Qatl-i-amd, assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty, abettor present when offence is committed, rioting, unlawful assembly

Bail, refusal of

Ground of statutory delay

Responsibility of the accused or person acting on his behalf

Scope

Petitioner and other co-accused allegedly made firing on the person of the deceased with their respective weapons

Petitioner contended that he was entitled for the concession of bail as despite passing of more than two years , his trial had not been concluded

Validity

Where the delay in trial of the accused had not been occasioned by an act or omission of the accused or any person acting on his behalf, such accused could be released on bail

Case diaries, in the present case, revealed that on about seventeen dates of hearing, although prosecution witnesses were present in the Court for recording of evidence but case could not proceed on account of non-availability of defence counsel or adjourned at the request of defence counsel

Defence was responsible for causing delay in finalization of trial within the period of two years

Each case, in criminal administration of justice, had to be decided on its own facts and circumstances and court was required to exercise jurisdiction independently

Bail was refused to the petitioner, in circumstances.

2017 YLRN 93 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 109Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetmentBail, refusal ofGround of statutory delayAccused was specifically nominated in FIR with specific role of causing injuriesMedical evidence supported the role attributed to accusedOccurrence was day time incident and parties were known to each other and no chance of mistaken identity existedWeapon of offence was recovered from accused and he was found guilty during investigationProsecution witnesses in their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C. fully involved accused in the occurrenceAccused (petitioner) was the one who caused multiple firearm injuries to deceased and othersDelay in trial being due to the conduct of defence, no statutory ground of delay was attracted

Bail was refused.

2016 YLRN 66 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 148, 149 & 109Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, common object and abetmentBail, refusal ofGround of statutory delayScopeEarlier bail applications of accused had been dismissed on meritsAccused had concealed material aspect in the certificate given at the end of the petition

Accused had no case for grant of bail on merits and even on the ground of statutory delay as delay in the trial could not be attributed to the complainant or the prosecution

Accused could not be benefitted for non-compliance of direction for decision of the case within the stipulated period

Bail petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2015 PCrLJ 134 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 497(1), Proviso 4thBail, grant ofGround of statutory delayPrinciples

Petitioner not accused of offence punishable with death, had been detained for a continuous period exceeding two years; and trial had not concluded, could be released on bail; if such delay in the trial of accused, had not been occasioned by an act or omission of accused; or any other person, acted on his behalf

If accused was a convicted offender for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and was a hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal; or was accused of an act of terrorism, was not entitled to get concession of bail on ground of statutory delay in conclusion of the trial

Element of hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal, could be ascertained from the previous record of accused, or by manner of occurrence committed by him; and the allegations levelled against him in the F.I.R.

Factors to be considered for determination of an accused as desparate and dangerous criminal were

Previous record of accused, which could include his earlier prosecution; nature of accusation and conduct of accused at the time of alleged occurrence, which had been committed in a heinous manner; element of brutality indicated that accused were hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal; and such act of accused amounted to terrorism; and such act of accused created a sense of fear or insecurity among the public at large.