PEARAL vs THE STATE
This matter arose from a criminal bail application filed by the applicant, who had been incarcerated since July 11, 2001, without the trial court even framing charges against him. Despite a prior direction by the High Court in a previous bail application to conclude the trial within six months, no progress was made, primarily because the jail authorities failed to produce the applicant before the trial court on twenty-nine separate occasions. The core legal question was whether the gross delay in the trial, caused entirely by the state's failure to produce the accused, justified the grant of bail. The Sindh High Court held that the right to an expeditious and fair trial is a constitutionally enshrined right. Since the applicant remained behind bars for over three years due to no fault of his own, the court ruled that the delay was unjustifiable. Consequently, the court allowed the application and enlarged the applicant on bail subject to furnishing a surety bond.
- Whether the failure of jail authorities to produce an accused person in court, resulting in gross delay and failure to frame charges, constitutes a valid ground for granting bail?
- Does an accused person have a constitutionally protected right to an expeditious and fair trial under Pakistani law?
- Can bail be granted on the ground of delay where the delay in the trial is entirely attributable to the state and not to the accused?
ORDER
1. ' Learned counsel says that previously in criminal bail application No,386 of 2003, directions were issued by this Court on 17-11-2003, for the disposal of the case against the applicant within six months but to date this has not been done. He further says that the applicant has remained behind bars since the date of his arrest viz. 11-7-2001 and even the charge has not been framed which is basically due to the fact that the applicant has not been produced by the Jail Authorities before the learned trial Court.
2. ' Consequently, learned counsel prays that bail be granted to the applicant since it is a case of gross delay in the conclusion of the trial.
3. ' Learned State counsel has not opposed the grant of bail in the circumstances of the case and according to him per the case diaries the applicant has not been produced on as many as 29 occasions from Jail.
4. ' I have heard both the learned counsel. It would be seen that previously in criminal bail application No,386 of 2003, vide order dated 17-11-2003, a direction was issued by this Court for the trial of the accused to be concluded within six months. However, the same has not been done perhaps due to the fact that the accused has not been produced before the learned trial Court on a number of occasions. The result is that even the charge has not been framed. In my opinion the right of an accused to an expeditious and fair trial has been enshrined in the Constitution of this country whereas in the present case the accused has remained behind bars since the date of his arrest viz. 11-7-2001 due to no fault of his. This cannot be justified at all. Consequently, for the foregoing reasons I would enlarge the accused on bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Two lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 3 cases
- LIAQUAT ALI CHANNA vs THE STATE 2011 YLR 878
- TAHIR MUGHERI vs THE STATE 2010 YLR 2693
- SALEEM UNAR vs THE STATE 2010 YLR 2705