MUHAMMAD QASIM vs STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed by Muhammad Qasim seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 9(c) and 15 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question revolves around whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of extraordinary delay in the conclusion of the trial, in violation of the right to a speedy trial. The court held that prolonged incarceration without tangible progress in the trial violates the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution, which encompasses the right to a speedy trial. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, relying on precedent and the fact that the delay in the trial was not attributable to the accused.
- Whether prolonged incarceration without tangible progress in the trial constitutes a ground for post-arrest bail?
- Does the right to life and liberty under Article 9 of the Constitution include the right to a speedy trial?
- Can an accused be detained in jail for an indefinite period without a concluded trial?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997
- Section 15, Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997
- Article 9, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 6. of 2005 dated 16.10.2005 for offence under Sections 9(c) /15 Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, registered at Police Station ANF, Faisalabad.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is behind bars since 16.5.2005 and despite a lapse of more than two years not a single witness has been examined by the learned trial Court.
3. On 18.10.2007, report was invited from the learned trial Court about the position of the trial which has been received. According to the report, on 22.10.2007 the case was fixed for recording of the prosecution evidence but on account of non-availability of the entire case property, the learned defence counsel requested for an adjournment. The case is now fixed for recording of prosecution evidence on 6.12.2007.
4. From the report it is evident that on the last date of hearing the case was adjourned for no fault of the accused as the prosecution had failed to produce entire case property in the trial Court.
Although the offence committed by the petitioner is grave in nature but the fact remains that he is behind the bars for the last more than two years and there is no tangible progress in the trial. It is a right of every accused to insist for a speedy trial. Right to life and liberty is a fundamental right guaranteed to a citizen under Article 9 of the Constitution. The said fundamental right includes the petitioner's right to a speedy, trial. A person cannot be detained in Jail for an indednite period without a trial as it would be an exercise contrary to the constitution and law. In an offshoot of the instant case (Crl. Misc. No, 6232-B-07 titled Khurram Zeeshan v. The State), the co-accused was allowed bail by a Division Bench of this Court comprising of our learned brothers Kh. Muhammad Sharif and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ, on the ground of delay in trial. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan +n the case of Gull Zaman v. The State (1999 SCM R 1271) has allowed bail to the accused who was behind the bars for about a years and a half. Therefore, while keeping in line with the order of the learned Division Bench and relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan referred to above, we admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.