Find a Lawyer

By this order, I propose to dispose of petitioner's Bail Applications Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 3840, 4074, 4075. 4076, 4077, 4078. 4079 and 4080 of 1980, as identical points of law and facts are involved therein.

2. The petitioner Agha Shafqat Hussain alongwith other accused is involved in eight separate cases under sections 403, 406, 409, 419,.420, 466, 467, 468 and 471, P. P. C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and registered at Police Station F. I. A. Commercial Banking Wing Police, Lahore (Pakistan).

3. The allegation against the petitioner alongwith other accused was that they misappropriated over Rs. 22 lacs by getting huge amounts, credited to fictitious accounts on forged foreign remittance documents from Lybia and withdrawals therefrom. The fraud was, however, detected on 22nd July, 1979 in the Queen's Road Branch of National Bank of Pakistan-Lahore.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's applications for bail had earlier been rejected on merits and on medical grounds by this Court and even by the Supreme Court. He, however, stated that this time, he invoked the jurisdiction of this Court on the strength of recent amendment introduced in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr. P. C., which contemplated that the Court shall direct release of the accused on bail if he was charged with offence not punishable with death and his trial did not conclude within statutory period of one year and he was not responsible for the delay in the trial of the case. It was submit ted that the petitioner was arrested on 24th October, 1979 and more than one year had elapsed but trial had not even commenced because the Investigating Officer did not submit complete challans in the trial Court. It was next submitted that one of the accused in these cases namely, Iftikhar Hussain Bokhari was released on bail by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 18th October, 1980 on the ground of delay. He also contended that nine co-accused had already been released on bail and the petitioner's case was not distinguishable from them. It was lastly pointed out that when petitioner's petition for Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed on 4th June, 1980, the Supreme Court observed that the question of delay in submission of challan would be relevant only when the statutory period provided under proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr. P. C. had run out and the petitioner would then be entitled to apply for bail on the ground of delay.

The Investigating Officer, present in Court stated that 4 or 5 challans against the accused were not submitted so far in the trial Court.

5. Learned A. A.-G. assisted by .Mr. Mohammad Ashraf Falahi. Advocate however, opposed this petition and contended that still two co-accused were at large and the delay in submission of the challans and then eventually the trial was attributable to the accused themselves. It was submitted that the right of the accused to be released on bail after, the expiry of one year if trial did not conclude was subject to condition that the delay was not attributable to the accused. It was submitted that the word "accused" in the amended law was referable to all the accused. It was also submitted that the cases in which the petitioner was involved related to large amounts of money misappropriated by a gang of swindlers therefor, the discretion should not be exercised in favour of the peti tioner who allegedly was one of them. On a question, as to why investigation in these cases was not finalised although more than a year had elapsed learned counsel.-for the State has no reasonable explanation except to hold the Investigating Agency responsible in the matter.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the relevant provision of law applicable in the matter. The peti tioner's bail applications were dismissed on merits right upto Supreme Court of Pakistan. Thereafter, he moved applications for bail on medical grounds, but those applications Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3011/B.80 to Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3018/13-80 were also rejected by me on 13^thOctober, 1980.

7. The petitioner's present bail applications on the ground of delay require consideration and for facility of reference, the newly-introduced third proviso to section 497 (1), Cr. P. C. relied by petitioner is reproduced hereunder:--

"497.-(1) When any person accused of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a Police Station, or appears or is brought before a Court, he may be released on bail, but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprison ment for ten years.

Provided:

Provided further

Provided further that the Court shall except where it is of opinion that the delay in the trial of the accused has been occasioned by an act or mission of the accused or any other person acting on his behalf, direct that any person shall be released on bail.

(a) who, being accused of any offence not punishable with death, has been detained for such offence for a continuous period exceeding one year and whose trial for such offence has not concluded"

(b)

In my view the word "accused" used in the third proviso to sub section (1) of section 497, Cr. P. C., is referable only to the applicant for bail and none else. If delay in trial occurs on account of his conduct or any person acting on his behalf, shall disentitle him the concession of bail on the ground of delay but on the other hand if delay in trial occurs on account of the conduct of the co-accused, it shall not be referable to the person detained in jail, otherwise if one accused absconds the others would rotten in jail for indefinite period.

In the instant case, there is no allegation against the petitioner that he himself or for that matter any person acting on his behalf caused delay in the trial of the case. Undoubtedly more than a year is over, but even complete challans in the cases were not submitted in Court. The trial is to commence only after the submission of the challans. The statutory period prescribed related to delay in the trial but in the instant case the statutory period is already over before the actual commencement of the trial. Nothing therefore can be said at this stage as to how much time the trial will consume in the disposal of these cases. The petitioner there fore, cannot be kept in jail indefinitely and penalised in advance particularly when the Legislature has already taken notice of such situations and introduced mandatory clause in section 497 (1), Cr. P. C. to release the accused on bail if the trial is not concluded within the specified time. The trial Courts in general and Investigating Agencies in particular, be alive to the newly-introduced provision of law in section 497 (1), Cr. P. C. and, expeditiously conclude investigations and trial of cases within statutory prescribed time failing which, the accused charged for heinous crimes will be released on bail and may prove grave threat to society at large.

8. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed bail on 18^thOctober, 1980, to Iftikhar Hussain Bokhari whose case is not, by far, distinguishable from that of the petitioner. Similarly, Haleem Chohan another co -accused was also released on bail on 15^thApril, 1980 by Supreme Court.

9. In the light of the reasons highlighted above, without expressing any opinion on merits and respectfully relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court allowing bail to Iftikhar Hussain Bokhari, and Haleem Chohan accused, I direct the petitioner to be released on bail in all the eight cases noted above provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, in each case, in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C./with powers of Magistrate Ist Class, Lahore.

Bail allowed.