Sameeullah S/O Muhammad Younus vs The Sate
The applicant, Sameeullah, filed a bail application under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking relief in connection with Crime No. 76 of 2020, registered under Sections 302, 397, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had previously dismissed his bail application, citing a lack of fresh grounds. The applicant contended that he had been incarcerated for a significant period and that the prosecution witness, Muhammad Hammad, had only partially testified. The core legal question concerned whether the applicant was entitled to bail due to the delay in the trial proceedings and the failure to conclude the examination of witnesses as previously directed by the High Court. The Court, noting that partial compliance with its earlier directive had occurred, disposed of the bail application by issuing a peremptory direction to the trial court to examine the remaining witnesses within one month. The Court held that failure to comply with this timeline would necessitate administrative intervention, while preserving the applicant's right to seek bail on all grounds, including statutory ones, should the trial remain delayed.
- Can a bail application be disposed of with a direction to the trial court to expedite witness examination?
- Does partial compliance with a previous court order regarding trial timelines justify the dismissal of a bail application?
- What is the remedy for an accused when a trial court fails to comply with a High Court directive to examine witnesses within a specified period?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. The applicant Sameeuallah has filed this bail application under Section 497 Cr. P.C in Crime No., 76 of 2020 under Section 302/397/34 PPC of PS Sir Syed. His earlier bail application has been dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 07.05.2024 on the premise no fresh ground was available to the applicant to maintain the fresh bail application. The applicant has raised his voice of concern, the applicant has been behind bars since his arrest and in the intervening period PW one Muhammad Hammad has been examined by the trial Court and his further examination-in-chief has been reserved. However, he seeks direction to the trial Court to examine the witnesses within one month, and in case the trial Court does not comply with the direction passed by this Court vide order dated 05.09.2023 in Cr. Bail Application No. 721 of 2023, the applicant shall be set at liberty to move fresh bail application on all grounds including statutory grounds. Learned Additional PG submits that the eye witness has identified the accused present in the Court, and therefore judicial proprietory demand that direction be issued to the trial Court to examine the remaining witnesses within one month, he has assured that the witnesses shall be produced before the Court positively for recording their evidence.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance.
3. This Court vide order dated 05.09.2023 directed the trial Court to examine the eye witness Hammad within one month and as per record his examination in chief has been recorded and his further examination in chief needs to be recorded. Prima facie partial compliance has been made, therefore, this bail application is disposed of by directing the learned trial Court to examine the remaining witnesses within one month. In case of failure, MIT shall refer the matter to the competent authority for passing appropriate orders on the administrative side.