Atiq-ur-Rehman Vs The State etc

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR IIIGH COURT,

BAI\]\UBENCH

(Judicial Department)

Atiq-ur-Rehman.

Versus.

The State etc.

Date of hearing: 15.12.2025.

For petitione r: Mr: MuhammadAnwarKhan Maidad Khal, advocate.

For respondents: Mr. Fahim Akram, advocate Uia Video Link).

For State: Mr. Muhammad Asghar Khan, Alwnlzat, Addl: A.G.

{r 4r r. r. rt dr:lr {r

1.Being charged in case FIR No. l7l datpd 17.08.2023, under Sections 302134 P.P.C, Police Station, Dadiwala, District, Lakki Marwat, the petitioner has moved the instant application for post araest bail on statutory ground which was declined vide order dated 13.11.2025 by the leamed Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Lakki Marwat.

2.Brief facts of the prosecution case, as set out in the F.I.R, are that on 17.08.2023 at about

09:30 hours, the complainant, Aziz-ur-Rehman, brought the dead body of his brother, Sadiq-ur- Rehman, to the Police Station and lodged the report. It was stated that on the preceding night, after offering .Isha prayers at lhe Masjid, the complainant and the deceased were returning home, whereupon the deceased informed the complainant that he intended to visit the baitak of Atiq-ur-Rehman, while the complainant proceeded to his house. On the following morning, upon finding his brother absent, the complainant went to the said baitak, wherc he allegedly came to know that during the nighg at some unknown time, the accused Atiq-ur- Rehman, along with Mst. Fazila Bibi and Rohaila Bibi, had enticed the deceased on some pretext, taken him inside their house, strangulated him in one of the rooms, and thereafter hanged his body' It was further alleged that the room was locked from outside and, upon opening the same, the deceased was found hanging from the ceiling and was taken down with the help of co-villagers' The motive assigrred was suspicion harbored by accused

J

Atiq-ur-Rehman regarding an alleged illicit relationship between the deceased and Mst.

Fazila Bibi.

3.Arguments of learned counsel for the parties and leamed AAG heard and perused the record with their able assistance.

4.It may be observed tJrat the petitioner had earlier sought post-arrest bail on merits, which was declined by the learned trial Court vide order dated 19.10.2023 and subsequently by this Court through order dated 20.11.2023. Thus, the present petition is not founded on merits of the case, but is confined strictly to the statutory ground arising out of delay in conclusion of the trial.

5.A careful appraisal of the available record reveals that the petitioner was arrested in the instant case on 19.10.2023 and has remained behind the bars since then. After framing of charge on 23.01.2024, the prosecution wasl required to produce its evidence with reasonable promptitude; however, despite the passage of considerable time, onlY three

witnesses have so far been examined. Notably,

the statements of the the

investigating officer, and other material witnesses, whose testimony is pivotal for the just adjudication of the case, are yet to be recorded.

A perusal of the order-sheets from 04.03.2024 to 22.11.2025 clearly indicates that the trial has suffered repeated adjoumments for reasons not attributable to the petitioner. The record reflects persistent non-appearance of

witnesses, strike days observed by the local bar on various grounds, pendency of exemption applications filed on behalf of co-accused, ll official engagements of police offrcials in polio campaigns. These cumulative circumstances have undeniably contributed to an inordinate delay in the progress of the trial. In such a scenario, continued detention of the petitioner, despite the prosecution's inability to conclude its evidence within a reasonable time, would amount to punitive incarceration and would be inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a fair and expeditious trial under the mandate of Article l0(A) of the Constitution of Islamic

u Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which reads as follows:-

"Right to fab trial:

For the determination of his civil rights and obligattons or in any criminal charge against him a person shall be entitled to afair trial and due process. "

6.The statutory protection contained in the third proviso to section 497(l), Cr.P.C, is in consonance with, and stands reinforced by, the constitutional mandate of Article 10-A of the Constitution.

7.The right to a fair trial is an inalienable entitlement of every person, which casts a coresponding duty upon courts and forums to deal with an accused strictly in accordance with law, to afford him a fair opportunity of hearing, and to act as an impartial and independent tribunal, as held in 2016 SCMR 943. Nevertheless, this Court cannot lose sight of the express statutory provisions governing the rights of a person, particularly where the alleged offender is exposed to incarceration during the pendency of the trial. It is by now well settled that where the law prescribes a particular mode for doing a thing, it must be done in that manner alone and not otherwise. Reliance in this regard

v is placed upon the judgment reported as 2022 SCMR 102, the relevant extract whereof is reproduced hereinbelow:-

" 24. The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan ('Constitution') is the fountainhead of the rule of law in Pakistan. 'To enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen.'3l The rule of law constitutes the bedrock of governance. When the law stipulates that something has to be done in a particular manner that is how it should be done. And any person who exercises authority must do so in accordance with lau,. The right to be treated in accordance with law was invigorated and bolstered when the Constitution was amended to provide an additional Fundamental Right by adding Article 10A to the Constitution stipulating tt that, 'For the determination of his civil rights and obligations or in any t criminal charge against him o person shall be entitled to o fair trial and due process.'32 The due process requirement must be met in the determination of rights and obligations. The Constitution does not define due process. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to limit its scope by defining it. But this does not mean that the due Process requirement is a meaningless concept. Rather due Process incorporates universally accepted standards of iustice and is not dependent upon any lav' or laws. It is an all encompassing exPression which may not be curtailed with reference to particular laws. Due process ,s to be understood holistically by keeping in mind the entire Constitution, which excludes arbitrary power, authoritarianism and autocratic rule."

8.Consequently, the petitioner's claim for bail on statutory grounds emerges as justified and legally sustainable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

9.For the foregoing reasons and keeping in view the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner, the slow pace of the trial, and the fact that the delay in conclusion of the proceedings is not atffibutable to any act or omission on the part of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner on the sole statutory ground. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed, and the petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees Two Hundred Thousand) with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial CourU lllaqa Judicial Magistrate/ MOD, concerned.

Announced. -Sd- 15.12.2025. Judge *Imranullah PS* JY'"r'

JADGE

(S.B)

Hon'ble Mn Justice Abdul Fayaz

sca fl 1v ffim*