NAJEEBULLAH KHAN Versus State
This petition for transfer of a criminal case arises from the conduct of the trial court in refusing an adjournment requested due to the absence of the petitioners' senior counsel and instead appointing a defence counsel at state expense in a murder trial. The core legal question is whether the refusal of adjournment and appointment of state counsel demonstrates bias or partiality warranting the transfer of the case. The Supreme Court held that while the trial court's actions reflected haste and anxiety for expeditious proceedings rather than actual bias or partiality, it is nevertheless advisable in murder trials to grant adjournments for the absence of senior counsel unless sought merely to protract proceedings, and accused persons generally prefer counsel of their choice. The petition was disposed of with observations that the trial court should avoid undue haste and urgency that might create doubts regarding its impartiality.
- Does the refusal of an adjournment by a trial court due to the absence of a senior counsel and the appointment of a defence counsel at state expense constitute sufficient ground for the transfer of a criminal case?
- Should adjournments be granted in criminal murder trials when the senior counsel is absent?
- Is undue haste by a trial court in conducting proceedings indicative of bias and partiality?
ORDER
SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, J.--- We have heard Mr. M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners. The conduct and behaviour of the trial Court specified in the impugned order in not allowing the adjournment to the accused persons for absence of their senior counsel and proceeding with the matter by appointing a defence counsel at the expense of State may appear to be in haste and anxiety of the trial Court to proceed with the matter expeditiously but it certainly does not convey or suggest bias or partiality as argued by Mr. M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court.
2. It may be observed that in criminal case especially in a case where the accused are facing the charge of murder it is advisable that adjournment on the ground of absence of senior counsel should be granted unless it appears that the same is being sought merely to protract A and prolong the proceedings. It is also a fact that the accused who had the capacity to engage counsel of his choice would like his case to be conducted by him and would not be agreeable to allow the counsel appointed at the expense of the State to conduct his case.
3. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any ground for transfer of the case. However, it is observed that the trial Court should be mindful of the above facts and should not show undue haste and urgency so as to create doubt of his bias and partiality in the mind of the accused. With this observation, this petition is disposed off.
H.B.T./N-15/SC ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.