HAROON vs THE STATE
This criminal bail application was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking post-arrest bail for the accused Haroon in FIR No. 124 of 2001 registered under sections 302, 324, and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ghouspur, based on the sole ground of statutory hardship and inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial. The core legal question was whether the protracted incarceration of the accused without material progress in the trial, through no fault of the defense, warrants the grant of bail. The court held that an inordinate delay of over three years in concluding the trial, coupled with the absence of any contributory delay by the accused and the non-examination of prosecution witnesses, constitutes a strong case for hardship and an abuse of the process of the court. The High Court accordingly granted post-arrest bail to the applicant, establishing the principle that prolonged detention without trial violates the presumption of innocence and justifies the release of an accused on bail.
- Whether prolonged incarceration and delay in the conclusion of the trial constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does inordinate delay in the prosecution of an accused amount to an abuse of the process of the court?
- Can bail be granted on the ground of hardship when the delay in trial is not attributable to the accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' By this order I propose to dispose of criminal bail application filed on behalf of the applicant Haroon S/o Ghulam Mustafa Gadehi in a case arising out of crime F.I.R. No, 124 of 2001 registered at P.S. Ghouspur for an offence under section 302, 324 and 452, P.P.C. Bail plea of the applicant was declined by the learned trial Court namely Sessions Judge, Dadu vide order, dated 9-2-2004.
2. ' In this application, the only ground urged on behalf of the applicant/accused Haroon is hardship and delay in the conclusion of the trial.
3. ' I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material brought on record. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused that applicant was arrested on 25-8-2001 and since then he is behind bars which come to a period of 3 years, 3 months and 10 days but the trial has not yet been concluded and the delay in trial is not attributed to the present applicant or any body acting on his behalf. He submits that charge has recently been framed on 18-2-2004; more particular to point out that after framing of charge, out of 12 hearings, the complainant was in attendance on only date i.e, 19-5-2004. He further submits that almost 65 hearings of the case, have been made during the trial but none of the. P.Ws have been examined except one formal witness i.e, Medical Officer who was examined only on 20-10-2004 that comes after nearly 3 years, 1 month and 25 days which is shocking. He finally asserted that in the eye of law each and every accused unless found guilty by a competent Court:is presumed to be innocent and inordinate delay in the prosecution not only amounts to abuse of the process of the Court but also do something strongly against such concept of punishment before judgment.
4. ' Learned State counsel, in view of the above legal position, has raised no objection to the grant of bail to the present applicant.
5. ' For what it has been discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that learned counsel for the applicant has been able to make out a case for bail which is granted provided he furnishes solvent surety in the sum of Rs,200,000 (rupees two Lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. Criminal Bail Application No,760 of 2004 stands disposed of.