DEEDAR vs THE STATE
This bail application concerns an accused person who has been in custody in connection with a criminal case registered in 1993. The applicant sought post-arrest bail on the grounds of inordinate delay in the trial, noting that the charge had not yet been framed and that prosecution witnesses were not traceable. The applicant argued that his absence from trial proceedings was due to his confinement in another jail, rather than any fault of his own, and that co-accused had previously been granted bail. The State counsel acknowledged the delay and the lack of progress in the trial. The Court held that the prolonged incarceration without the framing of a charge, combined with the non-availability of witnesses and the fact that the delay was not attributable to the applicant's conduct, constituted a case of hardship. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant, emphasizing that keeping the accused in custody under such circumstances would serve no useful purpose.
- Does the inability of the prosecution to produce witnesses and the failure to frame a charge after many years constitute grounds for hardship bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when their absence from trial proceedings is due to incarceration in another case rather than willful evasion?
- Can bail be granted when the trial has remained pending for over a decade without significant progress?
ORDER
1. ' MUNIB AHMED KHAN, J.---The learned counsel has contended that the applicant was arrested on 15-3-2002 as apparent from the Court diaries, he has filed, but since he was facing trial in another case and was confined at Nara Jail therefore, jail authorities did not produce him before the trial Court at Kamber despite issuance of production order, therefore, there is no fault on his part to delay the trial. He submits that the case pertains to the year, 1993 and according to the diaries of the trial Court specially diary, dated 11-2-1998, prosecution witnesses are not traceable, therefore no useful purpose will be served by keeping the accused in jail. He submits that two co-accused Din Muhammad and Allsher were granted bail by the trial Court at the relevant time which was permissible under the law at that time and that two co-accused have been died while only the applicant is in jail. He further submits that even the charge has not been framed in the case. The learned State counsel has halfheartedly opposed the bail on the ground that applicant has been produced from the Nara Jail on 28-8-2006 and from that date case is proceeding but he admits that charge has not been framed nor the witnesses are traceable.
2. ' After hearing and keeping in view the factual position coining on record specially non-availability of the witnesses as well as age of the case as it was registered in 1993 and that the stage of the case as charge even has not been framed the case of the accused fall within the meaning of hardship as there is no fault on his part to keep himself absent from the trial as his presence could be ordered by strict orders by the trial Court. In the circumstances accused is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,200,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.467]