MUHAMMAD IQBAL alias BALI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Iqbal alias Bali, who sought release on the grounds of statutory delay in the trial process. The petitioner argued that despite being in custody for nearly two years, no prosecution witnesses had been examined, and the primary witness had been sentenced to death in a separate matter. The State opposed the petition, alleging that the delay was attributable to the petitioner's own conduct, including collusion with jail authorities to avoid production in court. The Court observed that the delay in the trial was attributable to both parties and emphasized that a speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused, who cannot be detained indefinitely. Finding that the trial had been significantly delayed without progress, the Court allowed the bail petition, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds. The Court further directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within six months and granted the trial court liberty to cancel the bail should the petitioner obstruct the trial or intentionally absent himself.
- Is a speedy trial a fundamental right of an accused person?
- Can an accused be granted bail if the trial has been delayed for an extended period without the examination of witnesses?
- Does the court have the authority to set a specific timeframe for the conclusion of a trial when granting bail?
ORDER
' KHAWAIA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this bail petition, contends that the petitioner, is innocent and has falsely been involved in this case; the petitioner was arrested on 27-6-2005 one year and ten months have already passed but not a single witness has been examined; that the injured P.W. Mian Khan was awarded death sentence by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara on 31-3-2007; that the trial is not in sight and that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail by this Court.
2. On the other hand, Mr. Naseeruddin Khan Nayyar, the learned Additional Prosecutor General, while appearing on behalf of the State, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that case was adjourned on about 24 occasions, on seven dates of hearing accused were not produced from jail due to collusion with jail authorities, on several dates of hearing P. Ws. Were present but they were not examined, delay has occurred due to fault of the present petitioner and not the complainant and a direction may be issued to the learned trial Court to expedite the trial.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have given consideration to the submissions made at the bar and have also gone through the record.
4. I have already dismissed Criminal Miscellaneous No,7761B/2005 filed by Muhammad Irshad vide detailed order dated 18-11-2005 who was arrested on 22-6-2005. Petitioner was arrested on 27-6- 2005 one year and ten months have already gone by, but not a single witness has so far been recorded. The main witness Mian Khan injured has been awarded death sentence by the learned ASJ on 31-3-2007. Above all, he was available but not a single order shown that he was present on any A date of hearing. Delay in conclusion of the trial has occurred due to fault of both the parties.
It is settled law that speedy trial is a right of an accused person who cannot be kept in jail for an indefinite period.
' Therefore, without going into the merits of the case lest it may prejudice case of either side, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds- in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. However, it is made clear that if any hindrance is caused by the petitioner in the progress of the trial or he intentionally absents himself from the learned trial Court on any date of hearing, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail. It is further directed that the trial shall be concluded with six months from the receipt of this order.
Cited by 3 cases
- ABDUL SALAM vs The STATE 2015 P Cr. L J 808
- SARDAR ALI vs THE STATE 2010 YLR 1197
- SHAH NAWAZ vs THE STATE 2010 YLR 3182