Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AHMAD ALI VS Respondent: THE STATE
2001 P Cr
2001 P Cr. L J 1139
[Karachi]
Before Zahid Kurban Alavi, J
AHMAD ALI‑‑‑Applicant
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. 69 of 1999, decided on 26th March, 1999.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑--
‑‑‑‑S. 497(1), third proviso‑‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(4)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324/34‑‑‑Bail on ground of statutory delay‑‑‑Superintendent‑ of Jail concerned had issued a certificate as to the conduct of the accused giving opinion that he was not a hardened, desperate or dangerous person‑‑ Observation of the Trial Court in the impugned order, however, was that the accused being a police constable was supposed to protect the lives and properties of the public and not commit the robbery and murder of public‑‑ -- Accused in the opinion of Trial Court, thus, had acted as a dangerous and hardened criminal, which amounted to deciding the guilt of accused without affording him the benefit of the trial‑‑‑Every individual was innocent till he was proved guilty‑‑‑Bail orders should not go into the merits and demerits of the case, but Court should restrain themselves to observing whether a case for bail was made out or not‑‑‑Any‑observation on the merits at the bail stage would amount to pre judging of the case which was not the objective of law‑‑‑Bail was granted to accused in the circumstances.
PLD 1990 SC 934 and 1990 PCr.LJ 822 ref.
Ghularn Hyder Baloch for Applicant.
Ali Azher Tunio, A.A.‑G. for the State.
ORDER
This is a bail application moved by the applicant where he has prayed that the applicant was arrested on 17‑2‑1997 and since that time he is in jail, but the trial has not proceeded. The delay in the trial is not due to any fault of or at the behest of the, applicant. In this respect he has also produced the Court diary of the trial Court to substantiate his stand that the delay was not due to accused. According to him without going into the merits of the case, the accused is entitled to be released on bail as provided under the law.
The learned A.A.‑G. has read out the impugned order passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana. In this order he has particularly drawn my attention to the last two pages which are operative where whilst relying on the principles laid down in PLD 1990 SC 934 and 1990 PCr.LJ 822, it has been observed that the ground of statutory delay can be successfully urged if the Court is satisfied that the delay was not due to and on account of the accused and secondly that he was not previously convict of any offence and in the opinion of the Court was not hardened, desperate or dangerous person. The learned A.A.‑G. has drawn my attention to the fact that the Superintendent, District Jail, Larkana had issued a certificate as to the conduct of the accused and has opined that he was not hardened criminal, desperate or dangerous person. Contrary to this, in the operative part of the order the Court has observed that because he was police constable who is supposed to protect the lives and properties of the public and not to commit the robbery and murder, of public, thus, in the opinion of the trial Court the accused has acted dangerous and hardened criminal. This is to my mind deciding the guilt the accused without affording him the benefit of the trial. The principle behind which our Courts work is based on the dictum that any individual is innocent till he is proved guilty. There are observations of' the Honourable Supreme Court where it has been held that bail orders should also to go into the merits and demerits of the case, but while granting or rejecting a bail the, Court should only restrain themselves to observing whether a case for bail is made out or not. Any observation on the merits at the bail stage would amount to pre‑judging of the case and that is not the objective of the law. Under the circumstances, the bail is granted to the applicant in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
N.H.Q./A‑128/K Bail granted.