FAKHR-E-ALAM vs The STATE
The accused-petitioner approached the Peshawar High Court seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, on the ground that the trial court failed to conclude his trial within the one-month timeframe previously ordered by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the statutory delay and failure of the trial court to conclude the trial within the stipulated period, through no fault of the accused, entitled him to the concession of bail. The High Court held that since the delay was caused by the absence of prosecution witnesses and the trial court failed to comply with the earlier peremptory direction, the accused was not at fault and thus entitled to bail. The Court accepted the bail application, laying down the principle that unjustified delay in trial due to prosecution laches, coupled with non-compliance of court directions to expedite the trial, constitutes sufficient grounds for granting post-arrest bail.
- Whether the failure of a trial court to conclude a trial within a stipulated timeframe ordered by a superior court entitles the accused to bail?
- Does the absence of prosecution witnesses causing prolonged delay constitute a sufficient ground for granting post-arrest bail to an accused not at fault?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 265-C, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' SHAH JEHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.---Accused-petitioner, Fakhr-e-Alam has approached this Court for his release on bail in case F.I.R. No,492 dated 18-7-2012 under section 9(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, on the ground that the trial Court has not concluded his trial within a month, as ordered by. This Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No, 1243 of 2012, dated 9-10- 2012.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as counsel for the State and perused the record.
3. Previously, the accused-petitioner has filed bail petition Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No,1243 of 2012) before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 9-10-2012 being not pressed and the trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within a month positively after the receipt of the case under intimation to the Additional Registrar (Judi.) of this Court.
4. Perusal of the record shows that complete challan was submitted before the trial Court on 5-12- 2012. Provision of section 265-C, Cr.P.C. Were complied with on 11-1-2013. The accused-petitioner as well as his co-accused were formally charged by the trial Court on 26-1-2013 and the case was adjourned to 9-2-2013 for recording statements of the prosecution witnesses. From 9-2-2013 till 18- 4-2013 the case was adjourned due to absence of the prosecution witnesses. It transpires from the order sheets of the trial Court file that the case was lingering on due to absence of prosecution witnesses and the accused-petitioner is not at fault for unnecessary adjournments. The trial Court has not complied the order of this Court dated 9-10-2012, therefore, this Court is constrained to allow bail to the accused-petitioner.
5. Resultantly, this bail application is accepted and the accused-petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,100,000 (rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, who shall ensure that the sureties must be local, reliable and men of means.
6. Above are the reasons of my short order announced on 17-4-2013.