NASEEBULLAH vs The STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of post-arrest bail to an accused facing trial in a murder case before the Sessions Court. The core legal questions involve whether bail should be granted on the ground that the sole eye-witness has exonerated the accused at trial despite an earlier statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the discretion exercised by lower courts in refusing bail while the trial is ongoing. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that it does not normally sift and assess the value of evidence while a trial is still proceeding and thus declined to interfere with the lower courts' orders. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts will generally refrain from evaluating evidence prematurely during an ongoing trial, leaving the assessment of witness statements and recoveries to the trial court while directing the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.
- Whether the Supreme Court will sift and assess the value of evidence while a trial is still proceeding for the purpose of granting bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail solely because the sole eye-witness examined at trial has exonerated the accused, notwithstanding an earlier statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What directions may the appellate court issue when a criminal trial is unreasonably delayed?
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J: --The petitioner is an accused in a murder case and is currently being tried in the Sessions Court but the said trial, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, has now been pending for more than a year and its conclusion is nowhere in sight. Learned counsel also points out that the sole eye-witness examined against the accused has exonerated the petitioner.
2. He complains that the learned Judge in the High Court while refusing bail should not have taken notice of her earlier statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. As she was not confronted with it and the portions relied upon are not substantive evidence. In these circumstances the petitioner, according to the learned counsel, is entitled to bail pending the conclusion of the trial.
3. The learned Advocate-General, Baluchistan, has vehemently opposed this prayer. He points out that the recoveries which have been effected implicate the petitioner, that the eye-witness can be recalled and confronted with her earlier statement and that this is not a fit case for interfering with the discretion of the Courts below in refusing bail, especially when the trial is still pending.
4. We are inclined to agree with the last-mentioned submission. This Court does not normally sift and assess the value of the evidence produced in a case where the trial is still proceeding. Hence we are not inclined to interfere with the orders of the learned Courts below at this stage.
5. However, there is some force in the submission that the trial has already taken quite some time and if it proceeds at the leisurely pace at which it has been proceeding so far it may not conclude in the foreseeable future. We would, therefore, direct the learned trial Court to proceed with the hearing of this trial with greater expedition and try to dispose it of at an early date, within three months, if possible.
6. This petition, with these observations, stands dismissed.
Cited by 4 cases
- ALI BAAD KHAN and anothers vs THE STATE 2006 YLR 256
- SHAHID NASEEM Versus THE STATE 1998 PCRLJ 1198
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR Versus STATE 1995 MLD 1259
- MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus THE STATE 1995 PCRLJ 826