SARFRAZ vs THE STATE And Others
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, Sarfraz, who was charged under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dacoity. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the ground of inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial, noting that he had been incarcerated since July 2008, despite multiple directions from the High Court to the trial court to conclude proceedings within specified timeframes. The prosecution opposed the bail, attributing the delay to lawyer strikes and adjournments sought by counsel, rather than prosecution inaction. The Court observed that the petitioner had been in custody for over two years and five months and was not responsible for the trial delays. Holding that expeditious disposal of a criminal case is a fundamental right of an accused and that indefinite detention without trial is impermissible, the Court granted the bail petition. The Court emphasized that an accused cannot be penalized for delays beyond their control and directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, while granting the State liberty to seek bail cancellation if the petitioner causes future delays.
- Does the right to an expeditious trial entitle an accused to bail when the trial is delayed for reasons beyond their control?
- Can an accused be denied bail when they have been incarcerated for a significant period without the trial being concluded despite judicial directions?
- Is an accused responsible for trial delays caused by lawyer strikes or adjournments sought by counsel?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.-- Sarfraz, petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.436 dated 2-6-2008 registered under sections 395, P.P.C. At Police Station Ferozwala, District Sheikhupura. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused while armed with fire-arms committed dacoity and snatched fourteen gold ornaments, mobile phones, one pistol, one revolver, wrist watch etc. From the house of complainant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail after arrest mainly on the ground that the petitioner is behind the bars since 18-7-2008 and the trial has not been concluded despite repeated directions issued by this Court for conclusion of trial within a' specific time. Submits that first direction was issued by this Court vide order, dated 3-12-2009 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 12801-B of 2009 whereby, the learned trial Court was directed to conclude this trial within a period of two months; that thereafter, another direction was issued to the learned trial Court vide order, dated 11-6-2010 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.4922-B of 2010 and the learned trial Court was directed to conclude the trial of this case within a period of one month; that on this date i.e. 1.1-6-2010 even the learned Magistrate was present in Court and gave a categorical assurance for the conclusion of trial within one month but even then the trial has not been concluded.
3. Learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposes this bail petition on the grounds that the prosecution is not responsible for the delay in the conclusion of the trial as prosecution witnesses are regularly appearing before the learned trial Court.
4. I have heard the arguments of both the sides.
5. On 3-12-2009 while disposing of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 12801-B of 2009, the learned trial Court was directed to conclude the trial of this case within a period of two months but the learned trial did not conclude the same within the said period. The petitioner approached this Court again for his release on bail. On 11-6-2010, learned Magistrate who is conducting this trial, personally appeared before this Court and gave a categoric assurance that he will conclude the trial within a period of one month but surprisingly, the trial has so far not been concluded. A report was called from the learned trial Court and the report dated 4-11-2010 has been submitted wherein, the reason given for non-conclusion of the trial is as under:-- "The only reason due to which trial of the above titled case could be completed within the allotted period is repeated strikes of the lawyers on account of which recording of prosecution evidence could not be undertaken despite availability of P. Ws. On some dates. Another reason for delay is due to adjournments sought by the counsel for the parties."
In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for delay in the conclusion of the trial. He is behind the bars since 8-7-2008 i.e. For the last about two years and five months.
Expeditious disposal of a criminal case is right of every accused person and no one can be detained for an indefinite period especially when he is not responsible for the delay in the conclusion of the trial. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (rupees two lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned counsel. Learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of this case expeditiously keeping in view the direction issued by this Court.
If any delay is caused by the petitioner in the conclusion of the trial, the complainant as well as the State will be at liberty to file a petition for cancellation of his bail.