SOOBAN vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the accused, Sooban, seeking post-arrest release in a criminal case. The core legal question concerns whether the continued failure and deliberate avoidance of prosecution witnesses to appear before the trial court for over a year, rendering non-bailable warrants ineffective, constitutes a sufficient ground for the grant of bail. The Sindh High Court held that the persistent absence of prosecution witnesses and the lack of progress in the trial for more than a year entitles the applicant to be released on bail. The court laid down the principle that prolonged incarceration resulting from the dilatory conduct of prosecution witnesses in attending the trial provides a valid ground for granting bail to an accused, notwithstanding the merits of the allegations.
- Does the prolonged absence and failure of prosecution witnesses to appear for over a year constitute a sufficient ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Whether an accused facing allegations of firing at the deceased can be released on bail due to dilatory conduct of the prosecution?
ORDER
1. It is contended that vide order dated 31-5-2001 this Court had directed the trial Court for early disposal of the case. Accordingly on 28-8-2001 the learned trial Court framed the charge against the applicant and bifurcated the case of the absconding accused. The counsel contends that right from the date i.e, 13-9-2001 the process of summons, B.Ws. and N.B.Ws. is being issued against the P.Ws. but none of them. have turned up except the complainant who appeared on a single date and being a lady her absence was excused. The counsel submits that till today only Medical Officer has been examined, with no further progress in the case.
2. Mr. Sher Muhammad Shar, learned A.A.-G. appearing for the State has opposed the bail plea on the ground that the applicant is not entitled to bail on merits of the case as he is alleged to have fired at the deceased.
3. The only ground being pressed by the applicant's counsel and worth consideration is the conduct of the prosecution witnesses who have evidently kept themselves away for more than a year by making the process of N.B.Ws. ineffective for service by police. In my view this ground alone would suffice to entitle the applicant to his release on bail. Accordingly, the applicant is released on bail subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs,4,00,000 (four lacs) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 3 cases
- SAFDAR ALI and another vs THE STATE 2010 P Cr. L J 301
- GHULAM ALI MALGHANI vs THE STATE 2004 YLR 870
- ALI MURAD Versus THE STATE 2003 YLR 3166