Najeebullah Khan Etc. vs The State
This petition for transfer of a criminal case arose from the petitioners' grievance regarding the Trial Court's refusal to grant an adjournment due to the absence of their senior counsel. The petitioners contended that the Trial Court's decision to proceed with the trial by appointing a state-funded defence counsel demonstrated bias and partiality. The core legal question was whether the Trial Court's procedural conduct in denying the adjournment and appointing a state counsel justified transferring the case on grounds of apprehended bias. The Supreme Court held that while the Trial Court's actions might appear hasty, they did not establish actual bias or partiality. The Court emphasized that in serious criminal matters, particularly murder cases, adjournments requested due to the absence of a chosen counsel should generally be granted unless the request is clearly intended to protract proceedings. The Court ultimately declined to transfer the case but cautioned the Trial Court to avoid undue haste that might create reasonable apprehensions of bias in the minds of the accused, ensuring the right to a fair trial is maintained.
- Does the appointment of a state-funded counsel by a Trial Court upon the absence of a senior counsel necessarily indicate bias?
- Should a Trial Court grant an adjournment in a murder case when the accused's senior counsel is absent?
- Under what circumstances does a Trial Court's procedural haste justify the transfer of a criminal case?
ORDER SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, J. - We have, heard Mr. M.A. Zafar, A.S.C, for the petitioners. The conduct and behaviour of the Trial Court specified in the impugned order in not allowing the adjournment to the accused persons for absence of their senior counsel and proceeding with the matter by appointing a defence counsel at the expense of State may appear to be in haste and anxiety of the Trial Court to proceed with the matter expeditiously but it certainly does not convey or suggest bias or partiality as argued by Mr. M.A. Zafar, A.S.C. 1
2. It may be observed that in criminal case especially in a case where the accused are facing the charge of murder it is advisable that adjournment on the ground of absence of senior counsel should be granted unless it appears that the same is being sought merely to protract and prolong the proceedings, it is also a fact that the accused who had the capacity to engage counsel of his choice would like his case to be conducted by him and would not be agreeable to allow the counsel appointed at the expense of the State to conduct his case.
3. For the foregoing reasons,. We do not find any ground for transfer of the case. However, it is observed that the Trial Court should be mindful of the above facts and should not show under haste and urgency so as to create doubt of his bias and partiality in the mind of the accused. With this observation, this petition is disposed of.