After four years of imprisonment, the Supreme Court has finally granted bail to a Christian man accused of committing blasphemy, declaring that he was “entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right, not as a concession”.
A three-judge bench of the apex court led by Justice Sardar Tariq Masood heard the bail petition filed by the accused.
The allegations against him are that he created a fake Facebook account in the name of the complainant and posted blasphemous material there.
The case was registered against him on November 23, 2017, and he was also arrested on the same date. Since that date, he is detained and his trial has not yet been concluded.
"The petitioner was arrested and detained, in this case, on 24.11.2017. The charge against the petitioner was framed on 03.04.2018. Two prosecution witnesses were recorded on 27.02.2020. Till that date, a continuous period of exceeding two years since the detention of the petitioner in the case had lapsed without conclusion of the trial; therefore, a right to be released on bail had prima facie accrued to the petitioner,” read a six-page judgment authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.
“[The bail] could have been denied to the petition only if his case fell into any of the above-stated two exceptions: (a) if the delay in conclusion of the trial had been occasioned by an act or omission of the petitioner or by any other person acting on his behalf, and (b) if the petitioner was found to be a convicted offender for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or was in the opinion of the court a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal, or was accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life,” he added in the verdict while referring his last year ruling on the scope of the 3rd proviso to section 497(1) CrPC.
Saiful Malook, the counsel for the petitioner while talking to The Express Tribune, said the SC had laid down a clear law regarding the grant of bails on statutory grounds.
"Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, speaking for the full bench, has held that the statutory period will start from the date of arrest and not from framing of charge,” he added.
“If the statutory period is elapsed and trial is not concluded and delay is neither caused by accused, he shall be released on bail as of right and the court can’t decline bail on the ground of discretion."
Malook further said it was a historical judgement and thousands of under-trial prisoners were expected to benefit from the ruling.
“Justice Mansoor Ali Shah has written a new history in criminal law while rendering the present judgement.”
Read Top court grants bail to blasphemy accused jailed for four years
Justice Shah in his ruling wrote that the court had examined the record of the case and found that there was no delay in the conclusion of the trial till the expiry of the two year period of detention of the petitioner on 25.11.2019, which could be attributed to the petitioner or to any person acting on his behalf reflecting a design or pattern to consciously delay the conclusion of the trial.
"Any delay attributable to the petitioner after the expiry of the said period is not relevant for determining his right to be released on bail on the statutory ground provided in the 3rd proviso to Section 497(1) CrPC," the verdict read.
The judgment further read that the accused did not appear, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to be a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal” who is likely to seriously injure and hurt others without caring for the consequences of his violent actions and will thus pose a serious threat to the society if set free on bail.
The order read that the delay in conclusion of the trial, noted by the high court, attributable to the counsel for the petitioner representing him before the trial court, relates to the period after expiry of the continuous two year period since the detention of the petitioner in the case; therefore, it could not have been considered by the high court for determining the right of the petitioner to be released on bail under the 3rd proviso to Section 497(1) CrPC.
The order said that the high court has thus failed to correctly appreciate the scope of the 3rd proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C.
“This petition is, therefore, converted into appeal and allowed: the impugned order is set aside, the bail petition of the petitioner is accepted and he is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs500,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.”
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ