MUHAMMAD UMAR and anothers vs The STATE through Additional
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under sections 302, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Their previous bail application had been dismissed by the High Court with a directive to the prosecution to conclude the trial within two months. The petitioners filed the instant petition on the grounds of the prosecution's failure to conclude the trial within the stipulated timeframe. Upon review, the Court observed that while the prosecution had not met the deadline, the defense was also partially responsible for the delay due to seeking adjournments. The Court noted that only two prosecution witnesses remained to be examined. Relying on the principle that bail should generally neither be granted nor cancelled when the trial is at the final stage with only a few witnesses remaining, the Court dismissed the bail petition. However, it issued a peremptory direction to the trial court to conclude the proceedings within one month.
- Should bail be granted solely on the ground of delay in trial when only a few witnesses remain to be examined?
- Is the defense equally responsible for trial delays if they have sought adjournments?
- Can a court refuse bail when the trial is at the final stage of recording evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' LAL JAN KHATTAK, I.---Petitioners seek their post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,608 dated 19-10-2013 under sections 302/ 147/148/149, P.P.C. Of Police Station, Ouch, District Dir Lower.
2. Petitioners are involved in the murder of one Zahir who was done to death on 19-10-2013. It is worth to mention that earlier bail plea of the petitioners was turned down by this Court on 17-12- 2013 and directions were given to the prosecution to conclude the trial within a period of two months. Since, trial has not been concluded within the above period, therefore, the petitioners have sought their release on bait through the instant petition for failure of prosecution to end up its case against them.
' Arguments heard and record gone through.
4. At the very outset of the hearing, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined except two whose evidence would be recorded within a couple of days.
5. No doubt, that prosecution has not concluded the trial within the time given to it by this court but defence too is equally responsible for non-conclusion of the trial as it also got adjourned the case on two or three occasions. However, since two witnesses are there to be examined, therefore, without blaming either side for the delay, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within the shortest period of time because when two or three witnesses were to be examined then in that eventuality court should neither grant nor cancel bail to an accused. Wisdom is derived from a judgment reported in 2011 SCM R 1332.
6. In wake of the above, this petition is dismissed but with a direction to the trial Court to conclude the case within a period of one month positively. Office is directed to send record of the case to the trial Court forthwith.