RUSTAM ALI Versus State
The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, primarily on the ground of statutory hardship due to protracted delay in the trial and the vacancy of the trial court. The state counsel conceded to the grant of bail. The Sindh High Court held that notwithstanding the prolonged delay of six years and the vacancy of the trial court, no lenient view can be taken in a heinous murder case where the accused is specifically nominated in the FIR with a role of causing firearm injuries, and until the eyewitness testimony is recorded, bail on hardship cannot be granted. The court consequently dismissed the bail application, directing the Sessions Judge to transfer the case to another court for expeditious conclusion within three months.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted solely on the ground of hardship and delay in trial in a heinous murder case where the accused is nominated with a specific role?
- Can bail be granted on hardship before the testimony of eyewitnesses is recorded in a murder trial?
- What directions may the High Court issue when a trial court remains vacant causing delay in criminal proceedings?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. SYED SHAFQAT ALI SHAH MASOOMI, J .---By this application, applicant Rustam Ali Kandhro is seeking bail in Crime No.13 of 2003 registered with Police Station Civil Line for an offence under sections 302, 324, P.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has sought bail on sole ground of hardship. He states that the applicant was arrested on 26-2-2003 and since then he is in custody continuously. During above period of six months, only the Medical Officer and Tapedar have been examined three and half years back and thereafter no proceedings in the trial has been made. He submitted that delay in trial is not attributed to the applicant. However, he submitted that the trial Court is lying vacant for last one year. He further argued that no body can be kept in jail for an indefinite period.
3. Learned State Counsel has conceded to the grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of hardship.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record. Perusal of the record shows that the applicant/accused is involved in a murder case and his name has been transpired in the F.I.R. with specific role in the commission of crime that he along with others collectively caused firearm injuries to the deceased Qurban Ali who died at the spot. No doubt the case has not proceeded since last 6 years but in this murder case, no lenient view can be taken until and unless the evidence of eyewitness come on record. Reportedly the trial Court is lying vacant since last one year therefore, learned Sessions Judge, Larkana is directed to transfer the Sessions Case No.96 of 2003 re: State v. Rustam Ali and others from the Court of learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana to any other Additional Sessions Judge, at Larkana, to proceed with the case and preferably conclude the trial within 3 months where no adjournment will be allowed.
5. In the circumstances, the bail application is dismissed in above terms along with listed application.
6. H.B.T./R-20/K Bail refused.