MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus STATE
This is a criminal bail application filed by the applicant Muhammad Anwar seeking post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving a large quantity of charas registered at Police Station ANF-1, Karachi. The core legal question revolves around whether the accused is entitled to bail on the statutory and factual grounds of excessive and undue delay in the conclusion of the trial, particularly when he has been in continuous custody for over two years and the trial court failed to examine any witnesses despite explicit directions from the High Court. The Sindh High Court allowed the bail application, holding that the prolonged incarceration without material progress in the trial, coupled with precedent regarding delay in conclusion of trials, warranted the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that protracted and unjustified delay in the conclusion of trial constitutes a sufficient ground for granting post-arrest bail, even in heinous narcotics offenses.
- Whether prolonged and unjustified delay in the conclusion of a trial constitutes a sufficient ground for granting post-arrest bail in a narcotics case?
- Does the failure of the trial court to conclude the trial within the timeframe directed by the High Court entitle an accused to bail?
- Can bail be granted in cases involving large quantities of narcotics on the ground of protracted detention?
ORDER
Applicant Muhammad Anwar stands challaned alongwith nine other accused, out of whom some six accused are absconding, in a narcotics case involving 447 K.G of charas, registered at Police Station ANF-1, Karachi on 27-12-1998. The charge against the applicant and the co-accused was framed on 13-5-2000 by the Court of learned Special Judge (Control of Narcotic Substances) Karachi Division, Karachi.
2. In the earlier tr. Bail Application No: 534/99, this Court while dismissing the application of the applicant as not pressed, had directed the learned trial Court, on 13-9-99 to conclude the trial within a period of three months. According to this order the trial of the applicant should have been concluded by the end of 1999. During the year 2000, however, only the charge could be framed against the accused and no further progress in "the case could be made. The applicant, therefore has approached this Court afresh praying for bail on the grounds inter alia that he is in continuous custody since 27-12-98 and total period of his detention comes to about 2 and half years.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned Special Prosecutor ANF.
4. It has been contended that the applicant has remained continuously in custody for more than two years and in spite of this Court's directions to the trial Court, during the past period only charge could be framed and not a single witness was either examined or produced before the Court. That the co-accused Abdul Qayoom was granted bail by this Court on 28-4-1999 which order was upheld in 2001 SCMR 14. The learned counsel for the applicant have further produced before us a recent authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Cr. Petition No.6-K/2001 (David Dufaur v. The State) wherein bail has been granted to accused similarly charged, inter alia, on the ground of delay in conclusion of the trial.
5. On the other hand the learned Special Prosecutor while opposing the bail plea has placed reliance upon, 2000 SCMR 299, 2000 PCr.LJ 743, 2000 PCr.LJ 569 and 2001 PCr. LJ 331.
6. Perusal of the case diaries would show that Court orders, dated 13-9-1999 are not complied with for no sound reasons. The applicant has remained in continuous custody for a period of nearly two and half years 'and as expressed by us in an earlier decision passed in another case the Special Court which is now the sole Court for the entire Karachi Division is seized of more than 1000 cases.
7. Keeping in view the pace of progress even in cases containing Court directions and the above quoted unreported decision of the Hon'able Supreme Court we are inclined to grant bail to the applicant Muhammad Anwar and we do grant him bail subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.25,00,000 (Rs. Twenty five lacs only) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The bail application stands disposed of.
H.B.T./M-174/K Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- GUL ZAMAN vs THE STATE 2018 YLR 1270