BASHIR AHMED Versus State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Bashir Ahmed, who has been in custody since October 31, 2003. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of hardship, given the inordinate delay in the trial, the trial court's failure to comply with a previous High Court order to record prosecution evidence within a specified timeframe, and the subsequent destruction of the case record by a mob following the assassination of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto. The High Court observed that the trial court had not complied with its earlier directions and that the reconstruction of the burnt record would cause further, indefinite delay. Consequently, the Court held that the circumstances constituted a case of hardship. The Court granted bail to the applicant, emphasizing that prolonged incarceration without trial progress, exacerbated by the destruction of judicial records, warrants relief. The principle laid down is that where the judicial process is stalled due to the destruction of records and previous court directions remain unheeded, the resulting delay justifies the grant of bail on hardship grounds.
- Does the destruction of trial court records and the resulting delay in proceedings constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail?
- Can a bail application be granted on the basis of hardship when previous court directions to conclude evidence recording have not been complied with?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, J.---- The present application has been moved on behalf of applicant Bashir Ahmed, who is in custody since 31-10-2003. This Court by order, dated 31-1-2007 was pleased to direct the trial Court to record the evidence of prosecution witnesses within three months and the bail application of the applicant was dismissed. The learned trial Court has written in the impugned order rejecting the bail application that R&Ps of the present case along with other cases were burnt by the mob on 27-12-2007 after assassination of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and Court has sought necessary permission for reconstruction of the record, which has been granted to the Court by order, dated 8-3-2008.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant states that in the circumstances it is a hardship case and it is not known as to how long it will take to reconstruct the record because that is also not an easy job.
3. The learned Assistant Advocate-General, agrees to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and states that this case pertains to the special circumstances, inasmuch as that once direction was given by this Court by order, dated 31-1-2007, the trial Court should have complied with the same. Moreover, the record has been burnt. He has no objection if the accused is granted bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Abbasi, learned Assistant Advocate-General, and have perused the record.
5. Keeping in view the inordinate delay in disposal of the case and non-compliance of the direction given by this Court, and burning and reconstruction of the record of the trial Court, I hold this as a case of hardship and grant bail to the applicant upon furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 (Rupees two lacs) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
6. H.B.T./B-34/K Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- ALI ZAMAN vs THE STATE 2011 P Cr. L J 1551