KAPTAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed on the grounds of hardship by the accused in a criminal case. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail based on the plea of hardship given the current status of the trial proceedings. Upon reviewing the report from the trial court, it was observed that the charge had been framed, and the prosecution evidence was underway, with the cross-examination of a medical officer having been reserved at the request of the defense counsel. The court held that the plea of hardship could not be sustained at this stage of the proceedings, particularly as the trial was actively progressing. Consequently, the bail application was rejected. However, the court laid down the principle that if there is a lack of further progress in the trial within a period of four months, and provided that such delay is not attributable to the defense, the applicant retains the liberty to file a fresh bail application before the trial court.
- Can a plea of hardship for bail be entertained when the trial is actively progressing?
- Under what conditions can an accused file a fresh bail application after a rejection based on trial progress?
- Does the reservation of cross-examination by the defense impact the consideration of hardship for bail purposes?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, J.---Granted with all just exceptions.
2. The bail is sought on the ground of hardship. A report wascalled from the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has reported that charge was framed on 28-2-2006. The absconders have been declared proclaimed offenders. On 20-4-2006 medical officer waspresent, whose examination-in- chief was recorded but the cross-examination was reserved at the request of Mr. Jai Jai Veshnu Mange Rain learned counsel for the accused.
In the above circumstances, the plea of hardship cannot be considered at this stage. The next date of hearing has been fixed by the trial Court on 13-6-2006. Bailable warrants have been issued. The bail application is, therefore, rejected with the observation that if no further progress is made within four months and the delay is not caused on the part of defence, the applicant shall be at liberty to repeat the bail application.