FAIZUL HASSAN AND 4 OTHERS Versus THE STATE
ORDER
This is a bail application by five persons accused of offences falling under sections 302, 307, 324, 325, 148 and 149, P.P.C. I had dismissed on the 2nd of September, 1985, a similar application filed by them. Primarily the ground urged for bail was that they had been in detention without trial for more than two years. The prosecution was then able to indicate that the delay was caused rather by the petitioners themselves one way or another. One of them had absconded for a considerable period. Further, about a year was taken to summon the record in pursuance of an application made by the petitioners. The contention was that by that contrivance they had themselves delayed the trial and that they could not take benefit thereof.
2. They have again moved the present application more or less on the same ground of delay. It was stated that they are in detention since the middle of 1983 and that the time taken in concluding the trial after dismissal of the aforementioned application was not due to their fault. In fact, the trial in this case is complete but the decision has been held up because of the pendency of the cross‑case in which now proceedings are being taken to complete the trial. The two cases had to be decided simultaneously and for this reason decision in the present case could not be announced forthwith. According to counsel, this was a matter of legal compulsion and that any time taken on this ground will yield a benefit to the petitioners. He again cited Nazir Hussain v. Ziaul Haq and others 1983 S C M R 72 wherein right to bail for such a long detention without trial was held to be rather indefeasible, leaving no discretion whatsoever with the Court.
3. The delay now being taken in the matter of concluding the trial of the cross‑case cannot be attributed to the petitioners. The fact remains that they are in detention practically for last more than four years. Though prior to dismissal of their previous application for bail, there was reason to suppose that they had been themselves instrumental in causing delay, yet nothing of the sort was pointed out to disclose that almost a like period of two years taken subsequent to the above‑said dismissal was due to the petitioners' own misconduct negligence, or manipulation. Keeping this detention in view there may be no discretion available to refuse them the bail. The rule laid down in the Nazir Hussain's case cited above does not permit refusal of bail when statutory period has been allowed to pass away without completion of the trial. Accordingly the petition is accepted and all the petitioners are allowed bail on furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.30,000 (rupees thirty thousand only) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
M. Y. H./F‑48/L Bail granted.