MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following his arrest in connection with an F.I.R. registered in 2003. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail due to the inordinate delay in the conclusion of his trial, despite previous judicial directions to expedite the proceedings. The Court held that the prosecution's failure to produce a single witness, coupled with the trial court's inability to ensure timely progress, resulted in an unjust delay that effectively punished the accused without trial. The Court emphasized that the prosecution cannot adopt a relaxed attitude in witness production, nor can the presiding officer remain a passive spectator to mechanical adjournments. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where a delay in trial is not attributable to the accused, the continued incarceration of the accused constitutes an injustice and a form of pre-trial punishment, warranting the concession of bail.
- Does an inordinate delay in the conclusion of a trial, not attributable to the accused, constitute valid grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is the prosecution's failure to produce witnesses a factor that justifies the release of an accused on bail?
- Can the continued incarceration of an accused be considered a form of punishment without trial when the trial process is stalled?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.--- The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.691, dated 11-11-2003 registered under section 395, P.P.C. at Police Station Kahna, Lahore on the ground that he has falsely been involved in the instant case; no identification parade was conducted and that a bogus recovery has been planted against him.
2. On the other hand, learned D.P.G. opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The petitioner was arrested on 1-1-2004. Charge was framed on 10-6-2004. Vide order dated 31-1-2007, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.9675 of 2007, a direction for completion of trial by or before 31-3-2007 was issued. Despite, that the case is hanging fire and the prosecution has failed to produce even a single witness. Delay in trial, without fault attributable to the accused, works injustice. Prosecution cannot be allowed to adopt a relaxed attitude in production of witness and keep the accused in jail at the expense and cost of exchequer, which is maintained mainly through indirect taxation by the public-at-large. Such an unconscious delay amounts to punishment in advance, without trial. It appears that the mechanism for speedy conclusion of trial has failed. Neither the prosecution nor the process serving agency, is alive or keen in discharge of its duties. The Presiding Officer barely watches the proceedings and acts as an idle spectator. Perhaps, they have ignored a sacred responsibility on their shoulders to discharge by administering justice and refusing mechanical adjournments.
5. For what has been discussed above, the petitioner has made out a case for concession for bail. Accordingly this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
M.B.A./M-377/L Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- RIZWAN ULLAH vs THE STATE and another 2010 YLR 2010