MEHRAB vs THE STATE
The applicant sought post-arrest bail in Sessions Case No. 202 of 1999 arising from Crime No. 14 of 1999 registered at Police Station Piaro Laund under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on the sole ground of statutory hardship due to protracted delay in the conclusion of the trial. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of hardship where he had been incarcerated for over six years and the trial had been unduly delayed due to the non-attendance of prosecution witnesses despite the issuance of non-bailable warrants. The Sindh High Court held that the inordinate and alarming delay in the conclusion of the trial, coupled with the bleak prospect of progress due to the persistent non-appearance of witnesses, constituted a clear case of hardship. The Court laid down the principle that prolonged incarceration without a foreseeable conclusion of the trial, caused by the failure of prosecution witnesses to appear despite coercive measures, warrants the grant of post-arrest bail on the ground of hardship.
- Whether prolonged incarceration of an accused for over six years constitutes a ground of hardship for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does the failure of prosecution witnesses to attend court despite the issuance of coercive processes justify granting bail on the ground of delay?
- Whether an accused facing trial under Section 302 Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be released on bail when the trial has not concluded due to inordinate delay?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.---The applicant is facing trial in Sessions Case No,202 of 1999, arising out of crime No,14 of 1999, Police Station Piaro Laund, under sections 302, 34, P.P.C. On the accusation of causing murder of Eidan.
2. ' The bail is pressed solely on the ground of hardship as the accused is behind bars since 31st May, 1999, but the trial has yet not concluded. As contended by learned counsel of the applicant/accused the examination-in-chief of three witnesses was recorded after the directions of this Court vide order, dated 22-8-2002 but those P.Ws. Are not attending the Court for the purpose of their cross-examination despite issuance of N.B.Ws.
3. ' Learned A.A.-G. While referring to the order, dated 26-4-2004 passed by the trial Court has contended that some progress was made after the directions and three out of nine P.Ws. Were examined. However, he has not able to place on record any progress made after April, 2004 though one year has passed.
4. The applicant is behind bars since last six years. The case diary placed on record reveals that N.B.Ws. Are being issued against the. P.Ws. As they are not attending the Court. The direction given by this Court for expeditious disposal of the case could not be complied with despite the lapse of almost two years. In my humble view this is a case of hardship as inordinate delay in conclusion of trial is alarming. Besides there seems no chance of coercive progress in the near future due to nonappearance of P.Ws. Despite issuance of coercive process.
5. ' In the circumstances, the applicant is granted bail in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Two Lac) and P.R.
6. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.