-S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 467, 468, 471 & 109--Bail after arrest, grant of third post arrest bail application--Concession of bail on ground of statutory delay-

 PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 295

Criminal Procedure Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--

----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 467, 468, 471 & 109--Bail after arrest, grant of third post arrest bail application--Concession of bail on ground of statutory delay--Delay in conclusion of trial is being caused because of any act of petitioner or his counsel--Deputy Prosecutor General states that petitioner has no criminal antecedents--There is nothing on record to declare petitioner as a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal--Speedy trial is a fundamental right of accused being universally acknowledged--It has been held by Supreme Court of Pakistan in plethora of judgments that if delay in conclusion of trial is not occasioned due to act of accused or any other person acting on his behalf then accused becomes entitled concession of boil as a matter of right--Bail was allowed.           [P. 297] A

2012 SCMR 354.

Mr. Abdul Samad Ali, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Hassan Mehmood Khan Tareen, DPG for State.

Date of hearing: 20.4.2020.

 PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 295
[Multan Bench Multan]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, J.
MUHAMMAD ADIL--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 1254-B of 2020, decided on 20.4.2020.

Order

Through this petition, the petitioner namely Muhammad Adil has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 136/2012, dated 18.6.2012, offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 109, PPC registered with the Police Station FIA/C.C. Multan.

2. According to the prosecution, the allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith his co-accused prepared a fake and fictitious general power of attorney in his favour on behalf of the complainant and on the basis whereof transferred the immovable property owned by the complainant.

3. Written arguments and Police record perused.

4. Record reflects that this is petitioner’s third post-arrest bail application before this Court in this Case. His first bail application (Crl. Misc. No. 3600-B of 2018) was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 28.8.2018 whereas his second bail application
(Crl. Misc. No. 3247-B of 2019) was dismissed as having been withdrawn without arguing the same vide order dated 13.12020
with a direction to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably, within a period of one months’ and fifteen days. Now, the instant application for bail alter arrest, moved on fresh ground of non-conclusion of trial even after the elapse of a period of one year.

5. Record reflects that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 03.5.2018 and now more than one year has elapsed and he is still behind the bars without any fruitful progress in his trial The report of learned trial Court dated 10.3.2020 reflects that the delay is caused due to adjournments sought by the accused as well as the complaint. The said report is also outfitted with the interim order sheet of learned trial Court, which reflects that the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was received by the learned trial Court on 2.5.2018. Thereafter, on 25.9.2018 the petitioner lodged an application under Section 249 Cr.P.C. seeking stoppage of proceedings on the ground that a private compliant in the matter has already been filed by the complainant, which was dismissed on 9.1.2019. The charge was framed on 6.2.2019 and the prosecution has got the statement of complainant recorded till date. Thereafter, the instant case was transferred to the Court of learned Special Judge Anti Corruption Dera Ghazi Khan on 5.12.2019 and now the case is fixed for arguments on the applications under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. as well as for consolidation of the instant case with the private compliant. The interim order sheet of the learned trial Court reveals that the case of mainly adjourned because of non-availability of the learned Presiding . Officer and adjournments on behalf of the complainant.

6. In the given state of affairs, it cannot be said that the delay in conclusion of trial is being caused because of any act of petitioner or his learned counsel. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General states that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. There is nothing on record to declare the petitioner as a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal. Speedy trial is a fundamental right of accused being universally acknowledged. It has been held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in plethora of judgments that if delay in conclusion of trial is not occasioned due to the act of accused or any other person acting on his behalf then the accused becomes entitled the concession of bail as a matter of right. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Shabbir v. The State (2012 SCMR 354).

7. As the delay in the conclusion of trial is neither caused nor occasioned by an act or omission of the petitioner, therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail on account of statutory delay. Therefore, the instant petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of
Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

(A.A.K.)          Bail allowed