LIAQUAT ALI Versus State
The applicant, Liaquat Ali, sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Crime No. 146 of 2001, having been in custody since November 2001. The trial proceedings were significantly delayed due to the absconsion of the complainant, who was also an accused in a separate criminal matter. The core legal question was whether the prolonged and uncertain delay in the trial, caused by the absence of a material eye-witness, entitled the accused to the concession of bail despite the gravity of the allegations. The Court observed that while the applicant faced serious charges involving multiple firearm injuries, the indefinite nature of the trial's conclusion, resulting from the complainant's absconsion, necessitated judicial intervention. Holding that the legal scheme does not permit the indefinite detention of an accused without the examination of material witnesses, the Court granted the bail application. The key principle laid down is that where the trial's progress becomes uncertain due to factors beyond the accused's control, such as the prolonged absence of a material prosecution witness, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail.
- Does the indefinite delay of a trial due to the absconsion of a material eye-witness entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Can an accused be granted bail in a murder case where the trial progress has become uncertain due to the absence of the complainant?
ORDER
1. Applicant Liaquat Ali along with others is facing trial for murder of Mst. Sajida and Gul Muhammad. That case was registered with Waggan Police as Crime No. 146 of 2001 and the applicant was arrested on 10th November, 2001.
2. As some of the applicants co-accused were absconding their case was separated and charge read over to those who were in custody and/or in attendance. Two of the witnesses were examined besides two Doctors, one Tapedar and Mashir. Further progress in the trial is held up due to absconsion of complainant Hassan Ali who is accused in another murder case registered as Crime No.53 of 2003, Police Station Warrah.
3. The applicant tiled an application for bail on the ground that progress in the trial was held up and he was in jail since November, 2003. His plea was turned down by order, dated 1-9-2004 whereafter present application has been filed.
4. Heard arguments. The two deceased had 17 fire-arm injuries which were directly attributed to applicant Liaquat Ali and co-accused Muhammad and Nahal. Muhammad Has been released on bail by this Court.
5. The applicant is in jail since 10-11-2001. It is also a fact that complainant Hassan Ali is the eye-witness and he is absconding as accused in another case. Thus, the progress in the trial has become uncertain and it is not known as to when the trial shall be concluded. Obviously the scheme of the law is not to close the case and end it without examining the material eye-witness. In such circumstances the applicant deserves the concession of bail. Bail granted to him he shall be released on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 (three lacs only) in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
6. H.B.T./L-14/K Bail granted.
Cited by 2 cases
- ABDUL WAHEED vs THE STATE 2011 P Cr. L J 1574
- SHAH MUHAMMAD Versus State 2008 PCrLJ 1596