The Statutory Right to Bail to be Upheld unless the Delay is Attributable to the Accused --- Lahore High Court
Islamabad 05-07-2024: The Lahore High Court has granted post-arrest bail to Muhammad Rauf, citing a significant delay in the conclusion of his trial. Rauf, who was arrested under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), has been in custody for over a year and ten months without the trial reaching a conclusion.
The petitioner was implicated in FIR No. 565/2021, registered on May 28, 2021, at Police Station City Jaranwala, District Faisalabad. The charge against him involved issuing a dishonored cheque of Rs. 30,00,000. This petition for post-arrest bail was petitioner’s second attempt, following the dismissal of his first petition on merits in March 2023.
The Court evaluated the statutory grounds for bail, particularly focusing on the 3rd proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C., which allows for bail if the trial has not concluded within one year for offenses not punishable by death. The court noted that the delay in petitioner’s trial was not due to any action or omission on his part. Despite multiple summons, prosecution witnesses failed to appear, leading to the trial's protraction.
Mr. Justice Farooq Haider, presiding over the case, emphasized that the statutory right to bail is upheld unless the delay is attributable to the accused. These cases underscore the principle that the right to bail on statutory grounds cannot be denied unless the accused has deliberately delayed the trial or poses a serious threat to society.
The Court granted petitioner post-arrest bail, requiring him to furnish bail bonds of Rs. 500,000 with two sureties of the same amount to the trial court's satisfaction. The decision was made based on the delay in the trial, which was not attributed to petitioner’s actions. The court’s observations were strictly tentative, meant only for the disposal of the bail petition and not to influence the trial's outcome.
Mr. Justice Farooq Haider mandated that the trial be concluded within three months of the receipt of the court order. The judgment also provided that if any hurdles were created in the trial’s conclusion, the State and the complainant could move for recalling the bail order.
This decision highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that prolonged pre-trial detentions are addressed promptly, reinforcing the statutory rights of the accused.
Powered by Froala Editor