MUHAMMAD NADEEM Versus State Muhammad Ahsan Nizami
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was charged under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of four kilograms of charas from his possession. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the significant duration of his incarceration since December 2006 and the slow progress of the trial, where only two prosecution witnesses had been examined. The Court held that the right to an expeditious trial is a fundamental right of every accused, and an accused cannot be detained indefinitely due to delays in trial proceedings for which they are not responsible. Finding that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future and noting the petitioner's prolonged pre-trial detention, the Court accepted the petition and granted bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that the constitutional right to a speedy trial precludes the indefinite incarceration of an accused person when trial delays are not attributable to the defense.
- Does the right to an expeditious trial entitle an accused to bail when the trial is delayed?
- Can an accused be kept in jail for an indefinite period due to slow trial progress?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if they are not responsible for the delay in the conclusion of the trial?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 25, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.692, dated 17-12-2006 under sections 9(c)/25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 registered at Police Station Pattoki District Kasur.
2. The prosecution case in brief as narrated in the F.I.R. is that on spy information the police party headed by Muhammad Hayat, Sub-Inspector apprehended the petitioner and his co-accused and on search four kilograms charas was recovered from possession of the petitioner. Hence the F.I.R.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that four kilograms charas was recovered from possession of the petitioner and the petitioner is behind the bars from 17-12-2006 continuously and statements of two witnesses have been recorded so far and there is no likelihood of earlier conclusion of the trial, therefore, the petitioner may be granted bail.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General opposes the bail on the ground that huge quantity of charas has been recovered from direct possession of the petitioner and that the trial is in progress.
5. The petitioner is behind the bars since 17-12-2006 and till date only two P.Ws. could be recorded by the learned trial Court. Early decision of the case is right of every accused and there is no likelihood of conclusion of the trial in near future. The petitioner is not responsible for delay in conclusion of the trial. He cannot be kept in jail for indefinite period. This petition is, therefore, accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
N,H.Q./M-866/L Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- PATHAN KHOKHAR vs The STATE 2016 YLR 359