NOOR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed on the grounds of hardship due to the inordinate delay in the commencement of the trial. The applicant, having previously had a bail application dismissed on merits, sought relief because the charge had not been framed despite significant time passing. The core legal question was whether the applicant should be granted bail as a hardship case when the trial is delayed primarily due to the non-arrest of co-accused persons. The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail, noting that the right to a speedy trial cannot be frustrated by the absence of co-accused. The Court emphasized that the trial should proceed against those present before the court rather than awaiting the apprehension of absconding co-accused. Consequently, the application was allowed, and the applicant was admitted to bail upon furnishing the required surety. This judgment reinforces the principle that the state cannot indefinitely delay the trial of an accused person in custody simply because other co-accused remain at large, as such delays constitute valid grounds for hardship bail.
- Can a trial be delayed solely because other co-accused persons have not yet been arrested?
- Does the failure to frame a charge within a reasonable period constitute grounds for hardship bail?
- Is the right to a speedy trial frustrated by awaiting the arrest of absconding co-accused?
ORDER
1. ' Application for bail moved on merits was dismissed by this Court on 15-5-2002. The case however, did not make progress at the trial and till this day, charge has not been framed. The applicant has, therefore, approached this Court for grant of bail as a hardship case.
2. ' I have heard Mr. Pirbuhal learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Kourejo, learned counsel for the State.
3. ' Learned State Counsel does not oppose the grant of bail in view of the law laid down by this Court on the point of hardship. Learned counsel for the applicant relied on the case: Punhal v. State 2004 PCr.LJ 90, wherein bail was granted as a hardship case, as the applicant had remained in jail for a period of more than three years. Reliance was placed in the said case relied on the cases Abdul Hameed v. State 2003 M LD 19 and Behram v. State 2003 PCr.LJ 73.
4. From the circumstances of the case, it could not be gathered as to what are the reasons for not framing the charge and commence with the trial. As pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant, there are 12 co-accused, who are still absconding and perhaps their arrest is awaited.
5. The Honourable Supreme Court as well as this Court have time and again held that right of trial of an accused is not to be frustrated. In this context, yet another rule has been laid down by this Court that it is of no use to delay the commencement of trial simply because other accused are yet to be arrested. Essentially the trial should commence against those who are present before the Court.
6. Instantly the impugned order does not show any cogent justification for withholding the trial.
7. In the circumstances stated above, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. Three lacs and executing P.R. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of trial Court.