ABDUL WAHEED Versus State
This matter comes before the High Court through a bail application filed by the accused, Abdul Waheed, seeking post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial. The core legal question concerns whether prolonged incarceration without substantial progress in the trial, specifically where the delay is not attributable to the accused, warrants the grant of bail on the ground of hardship. The court held that since the applicant has been incarcerated since October 12, 2001, without any prosecution witnesses being examined, and the delay is primarily caused by the non-production of the accused and non-attendance of witnesses rather than the conduct of the applicant, the continued detention constitutes hardship. The court laid down the principle that a right to a fair and efficacious trial is a fundamental right of all citizens of Pakistan, and prolonged, unexplained delay in trial proceedings entitles an accused person to the concession of bail.
- Does prolonged incarceration without the examination of any prosecution witnesses entitle an accused to post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay?
- Whether delay caused by the non-production of the accused and non-attendance of witnesses can be attributed to the applicant for the purpose of denying bail?
- Is the right to a fair and efficacious trial considered a fundamental right that influences the grant of bail in cases of protracted trial delays?
- Article 9, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. Learned counsel says that according to the case diaries available on the record, the delay in conclusion of the trail cannot be attributed to the Applicant/Accused, hence he has prayed that he be given bail as he was arrested on 12-10-2001 and to date not a single P.W. has been examined.
2. To this learned State counsel submits that per the case diaries at least 2/3 adjournments have been taken by the counsel for the applicant and hence it cannot be said that the Applicant is entirely not responsible for the delay in conclusion of the trial. He has opposed the grant of bail on the ground of hardship and the delay.
3. I have heard both the learned counsel and have perused the diary sheets of the learned trial Court.
4. It would be seen from the said case diaries apart from 2/3 adjournments, the learned counsel for the applicant has been regularly attending the learned trial Court. The delay in conclusion of the trial is due firstly to non-production of the accused and secondly to non-attendance of the witnesses. Admittedly the applicant is behind the bars since 12-10-2001 and there is no allegation against him that he is a notorious, dangerous or hardened criminal. Similarly investigation has now been concluded and he is no more required for the said purpose. In the circumstances, I would grant bail to the applicant since right to a fair and efficacious trial is the fundamental right of all citizens of Pakistan. He shall be released from jail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. three hundred thousand and P.R. bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
5. H.B.T./A-177/K Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- KHALID vs The STATE 2014 P Cr. L J 437