BASHIR AHMED vs STATE
The present criminal misc. application has been moved on behalf of the applicant, Bashir Ahmed, seeking post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay and hardship, having remained in custody since 31.10.2003. The core legal question before the court was whether prolonged incarceration coupled with the destruction and subsequent reconstruction of the trial court record warrants the grant of bail on the ground of statutory hardship. The Sindh High Court held that the inordinate delay in the disposal of the case, non-compliance with the earlier directions of the court to conclude recording of evidence, and the burning and reconstruction of the trial court record collectively constitute a case of hardship. Consequently, the court allowed the application and granted post-arrest bail to the applicant subject to furnishing the requisite surety. The key principle laid down is that extensive systemic delays, including the destruction of court records and failure to expedite trials as previously directed, create a strong case of hardship justifying the release of an accused on bail.
- Whether prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay in the disposal of a case constitute a sufficient ground of hardship for the grant of bail?
- Does the destruction of trial court records and the time required for their reconstruction furnish a valid basis for considering a bail application on merits of delay?
- Whether non-compliance with earlier directions of the High Court to expedite the recording of prosecution evidence supports the concession of bail to an accused in custody?
ORDER
1. The present application has been moved on behalf of applicant Bashir Ahmed, who is in custody since 31.10.2003. This Court by order, dated 31.1.2007 was pleased to direct the trial Court to record the evidence of prosecution witnesses within three months and the bail application of the applicant was dismissed. The learned trial Court has written in the impugned order rejecting the bail application that R & Ps of the present case alongwith other cases were burnt by the mob on 27.12.2007 after assassination of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and Court has sought necessary permission for reconstruction of the record, which has been granted to the Court' by order, dated 8.3.2008.
2. The learned Counsel for the applicant states that in the circumstances it is a hardship case and it is not known as to how long it will take to reconstruct the record because that is also notan easy job.
3. The learned Asstt. A.G., agrees to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant and states that this case pertains to the special circumstances, inasmuch as that once direction was given by this Court by order, dated 31.1.2007, the trial Court should have complied with the same. Moreover, the record has been burnt. He has no objection if the accused 13 granted bail.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Abbasi, learned Asstt. A.G., and have perused the record.
5. Keeping in view the inordinate delay-in disposal of the case and non-compliance of the direction given by this Court, and burning and reconstruction of the record of fife trial Court, I hold this as a case of hardship and grant bail to the applicant upon furnishing surety in the sum of Rs, 200,000/-