HAZAR KHAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by an accused who has remained in custody for approximately six years, despite a previous High Court order directing the trial court to conclude the examination of material witnesses within three months. The core legal question was whether the accused is entitled to bail due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in the trial proceedings, particularly given the statutory mandate for expeditious disposal of cases under the Anti-Terrorism Act. The Court observed that the trial court failed to comply with previous directions or provide an explanation for the delay, and noted the accused's advanced age of 63 years and poor health. Holding that the trial court's inefficiency had rendered the statutory timelines meaningless, the High Court granted bail to the accused. The key principle laid down is that where there is an inordinate, unexplained delay in trial proceedings, especially in cases subject to strict statutory timelines like those under the Anti-Terrorism Act, the accused's right to liberty outweighs the prosecution's interest in continued detention, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does an inordinate and unexplained delay in trial proceedings justify the grant of bail to an accused?
- Can a court grant bail when the trial court fails to comply with specific directions to expedite the examination of witnesses?
- Does the failure of a trial court to adhere to the statutory timelines for case disposal under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 constitute grounds for bail?
- Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
ORDER
1. ' KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, J.--- In this case, the Division Bench of this Court on 21-9-2007 was pleased to pass the following order:-- "The trial Court is directed to examine the material witnesses within three months from the date of communication of this order and report compliance. In case if the order is not complied with, the trial Court shall submit explanation. This bail application stands disposed of in the above terms."
2. 'Neither the order has been complied with nor any explanation has been submitted by the learned trial Judge for delay in disposal of the case. The learned counsel states that the Court is presently lying vacant since December, 2007. It has been stated that accused is continuously in custody for last six years from 4-9-2002. This inordinate delay has not been explained by the prosecution. The learned Advocate has shown us he CNIC of accused which shows his date of birth as 15-5-1945.
3. The age of the accused is about 63 years and he is stated to be unwell.
4. ' Mr. Naimatullah Bhurgri, learned State Counsel states that the delay in disposal of the trial is inordinate specially when this case has been assigned to ATA Court which under the Act is supposed to dispose of the cases within seven days.
5. The trial Courts have made joke of the law. The cases which are required to be disposed of or finished within seven days have not been concluded within six years. We take serious note of inefficiency of the trial Court and grant bail to the accused upon his furnishing solvent surety in the sum' of Rs,200,000 (Two Lacs) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
6. ' From the order of the trial Court passed on bail application, we find that some reference regarding jurisdiction of the Court is pending in High Court. Office is directed to fix the reference before the Court for hearing within one week.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD AZIM and another vs THE STATE 2009 P Cr. L J 1314